March 6, 1875 a court verdict that will preside in infamy, the verdict of the Dred Scott versus John Sandford Supreme Court case. Dred Scott, a once enslaved African-American man who then moved with his wife to Illinois, a free state or one in which slavery is illegal. By virtue of not being allowed to purchase land undeterred by the fact that under state legislation he was a free man, Dred Scott attempted to sue in a federal court. The chief justice in this case was Chief Justice Roger B Taney, a Federalist white man. He was also born and raised in a slaveholding household, obviously one that was against the freedom of negroes in America. His bipartisan opinion on Dred Scott ensued Taney in ignoring crucial evidence brought before the court
…show more content…
National Archives & Records Administration. Supreme Court. N.d. Library of Congress. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Apr. 2016,” is to interpret the law, assess the evidence presented, and control how hearings and trials unfold in their courtrooms. It is a crime not only against Chief Justice Roger B Taney 's responsibilities as a judge as well as one against the plaintiffs freedom for his disregard of all evidence presented. Dred Scott presented the court with evidence of why the verdict should be fairly played in his favor, most of which were left out account of. The final verdict of Dred Scott v John Sandford was as follows, (include textual evidence). According to the eyes of the law through the perspective of Roger B Taney, Dred Scott, who was previously a slave, was not a US citizen and therefore could neither own land or sue in a federal court. However, it is evident that Dred Scott was a married man. In 1836 Taliaferro wed Dred Scott to Virginia slave, Harriet Robinson. In 1836 marriage was illegal to slaves, yet Dred Scott was legally wed to his wife by a state officiator. So in technical terms, if Dred Scott were a slave he would not have been allowed to be wed or to have been officially wed to his wife Dred Scott was considered a free man. Had Chief Justice Taney followed his duties to access all evidence presented in the court, such as evidence of Dred Scott being known as a enough of free man, or at the least not a piece of …show more content…
The Sixth Amendment as stated in the United States Constitution, “Guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” One would hope to have the peace of mind in knowing that the judges that serve the court of the United States of america, especially a Supreme Court Justice, would abide by any and all laws of our Constitution. Per contra, Taney is viewed as not only an innocent man in the eyes of the law, but a respected one at any cost. By denying Dred Scott his rights as specified in the sixth amendment of the Constitution, he was directly violating it and in retrospect breaking the law. Furthermore, as legislated by the USCIS, “To become a citizen at birth, you must have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Roger B Taney’s jurisdiction lies within the
National Archives & Records Administration. Supreme Court. N.d. Library of Congress. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Apr. 2016,” is to interpret the law, assess the evidence presented, and control how hearings and trials unfold in their courtrooms. It is a crime not only against Chief Justice Roger B Taney 's responsibilities as a judge as well as one against the plaintiffs freedom for his disregard of all evidence presented. Dred Scott presented the court with evidence of why the verdict should be fairly played in his favor, most of which were left out account of. The final verdict of Dred Scott v John Sandford was as follows, (include textual evidence). According to the eyes of the law through the perspective of Roger B Taney, Dred Scott, who was previously a slave, was not a US citizen and therefore could neither own land or sue in a federal court. However, it is evident that Dred Scott was a married man. In 1836 Taliaferro wed Dred Scott to Virginia slave, Harriet Robinson. In 1836 marriage was illegal to slaves, yet Dred Scott was legally wed to his wife by a state officiator. So in technical terms, if Dred Scott were a slave he would not have been allowed to be wed or to have been officially wed to his wife Dred Scott was considered a free man. Had Chief Justice Taney followed his duties to access all evidence presented in the court, such as evidence of Dred Scott being known as a enough of free man, or at the least not a piece of …show more content…
The Sixth Amendment as stated in the United States Constitution, “Guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” One would hope to have the peace of mind in knowing that the judges that serve the court of the United States of america, especially a Supreme Court Justice, would abide by any and all laws of our Constitution. Per contra, Taney is viewed as not only an innocent man in the eyes of the law, but a respected one at any cost. By denying Dred Scott his rights as specified in the sixth amendment of the Constitution, he was directly violating it and in retrospect breaking the law. Furthermore, as legislated by the USCIS, “To become a citizen at birth, you must have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Roger B Taney’s jurisdiction lies within the