Dred Scott v. Sandford
This story is too important to post as one page or post, so here is a short introduction.
Modern Day Slavery is where we are at today. We all have become slaves, especially our children. Not too long ago our Government was sending children up chimneys to clean them.
Source: Slavery by Another Name.
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Supreme Court of the United States, 1857 19 Howard 393, 15 L.Ed. 691.
In 1834, Dred Scott, a Negro slave belonging to Dr. Emerson, a surgeon in the United States Army, was taken by his master to Illinois, where slavery was forbidden. Later on, Scott was taken to Fort Snelling, in the territory of Louisiana, north of 36o 30′, an area in which slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise. Having been taken back to Missouri, the Negro brought suit in United States Circuit Court in Missouri to recover his freedom, basing his action on the claim that residence in a free territory conferred freedom. On a writ of error, from an adverse judgment, Dred Scott appealed to the Supreme Court.
The act of Congress, upon which the plaintiff relies, declares that slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall be forever prohibited in all that part of the territory ceded by France, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, and not included within the limits of Missouri. And the . . . inquiry is whether Congress was authorized to pass this law under any of the powers granted to it by the Constitution; for if the authority is not given by that instrument, it is the duty of this court to declare it void and inoperative, and incapable of conferring freedom upon any one who is held as a slave under the laws of any one of the States.
The counsel for the plaintiff has laid much stress upon that article in the Constitution which confers on Congress the power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States,” but, in the judgment of the court, that provision has no bearing on the present controversy, and the power there given, whatever it may be, is confined, and was intended to be confined, to the territory which at that time belonged to, or was claimed by the United States, and was within their boundaries as settled by the treaty with Great Britain, and can have no influence upon a territory afterwards acquired from a foreign Government. It was a special provision for a known and particular territory, and to meet a present emergency, and nothing more. To Read In Full Click Here
Chief Justice Taney, who once called slavery “a blot on our national character,” was nevertheless a staunch supporter of the South’s slave-based economy (recordsofrights.org). Judges break their own laws all the time.
— American History TV (@cspanhistory) March 6, 2016
- Children’s rights
- Civil Rights In The United Kingdom
- Local man tells horrifying tales of child sex slavery: First Coast News On Point News Magazine – YouTube
- Maryanne Godboldo—Detroit Mother Who Refused to Drug Her Child