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. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT