ILNews

Students, attorneys learn about historic Dred Scott case

IL Staff
February 28, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A U.S. Supreme Court decision from 155 years ago that helped ignite the Civil War came to life again Tuesday in the Indiana Supreme Court and a nearby university as part of a Black History Month observation to teach students and attorneys about the importance of the Dred Scott decision on constitutional rights.

The state Supreme Court and Office of the Indiana Attorney General hosted the program for students from five Indianapolis area high schools, exploring the legal and cultural aspects of the 1857 decision from the Supreme Court of the United States.

An African-American man held in slavery in the 1850s, Dred Scott sued to gain his freedom and took his case all the way to the nation’s highest court. Though a lower court had freed Scott from slavery, the SCOTUS denied Scott and other enslaved persons their legal rights, resulting in Scott being enslaved again. Though Scott and his wife, Harriett, eventually were freed, he did not live to see the political outcome of the 7-2 Supreme Court ruling. Now considered a pivotal turning point in American history, the Dred Scott decision led to the political rise of Abraham Lincoln, secession of the slaveholding Southern states, outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, abolition of slavery nationwide, and the passage of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

At Tuesday’s presentation in the Indiana Supreme Court chamber, speakers included Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who wrote the book “Am I Not A Man? The Dred Scott Story,” and Dred Scott’s great-great granddaughter Lynne M. Jackson.  Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller attended Shurtleff’s presentation on the Dred Scott decision a few years ago in the old SCOTUS chamber of the U.S. Capitol, and Zoeller was so impressed he asked Shurtleff to present it to Indiana students and attorneys.

Shurtleff described the legal and historical ramifications of the decision, while Jackson provided the family perspective of her famous ancestor who fought for his freedom in the courts and lost but inspired the antislavery Abolitionist movement. Students from Arsenal Tech, Covenant Christian, Lawrence North, Plainfield and Silver Creek high schools read aloud excerpts from the decision.

“Behind the historic cases lawyers study are real people who faced real hardships. The Dred Scott decision called into question the basic American notion of equality and today it reminds us that the system of justice is imperfect. Though it took the pain and suffering of the Civil War, justice eventually prevailed to right a wrong, and that’s something students today should understand,” Zoeller said.

On Tuesday afternoon at Martin University in Indianapolis, Shurleff and Jackson presented a Continuing Legal Education session to attorneys, focusing on legal analysis of the decision and its impact. Zoeller served as moderator of that program.

The day’s programs are also sponsored by the Indiana Bar Foundation, Martin University and the Indiana Supreme Court Legal History Lecture Series with support from the Indiana Commission on Continuing Legal Education. The student event is also sponsored by the Indiana Supreme Court’s “Courts in the Classroom” program.
.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT