Dread Scott Case Analysis

“In 1847, Dred Scott first went to trial to sue for his freedom, (Dred Scott’s fight for freedom).” “While the immediate issue in this case was Dred Scott’s status, the court also had the opportunity to rule on the question of slavery in the territories, (Appleby et all, 446-447).” One of the main issues of this case was that the justices were trying to settle a political problem rather than being completely fair in their decisions. Dred lost the first trial but was granted a second trial. The next year the Missouri Supreme Court decided that the case should be retried, (Dred Scott’s fight for freedom). In 1850, the Circuit Court of St. Louis County

　　　　Slavery was at the root of the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott sued his master to obtain freedom for himself and his family. His argument was that he had lived in a territory where slavery was illegal; therefore he should be considered a free man. Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia around 1800. Scott and his family were slaves owned by Peter Blow and his family. He moved to St. Louis with them in 1830 and was sold to John Emerson, a military doctor. They went to Illinois and the Wisconsin territory where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Dred Scott married and had two

When the Preamble starts, it says "We the People", that is talking about every citizen in the United States of America. The Preamble also states the goals that the Instead States wanted to have.

Dred Scott vs. Sanford – Dred Scott, a slave from Missouri, owned by an army surgeon who had taken Scott into Illinois and Wisconsin where slavery was forbidden. Now, the surgeon’s brother was claiming ownership of Scott. The court was extremely divided but eventually declared that Scott didn’t have a case because he wasn’t a legal citizen.

To start off, in the 1857 case Dred Scott V Sanford rights were violated. In the case Dred Scott vs Sanford, Dred Scott was a slave that was freed by his master, but then was forced to go back to a slave state. Dred Scott thought he deserved to be free. Dred Scott wanted to sue. He was already freed by his master so he shouldn't have had to go back to slave state. Dred Scott's master guarantee him of his freedom, because of that, when it was taken away Dred Scott didn't agree with that resolution and wanted him and his wife to be free. Due to that, the case was taken to court, the judge found that once Dred Scott was freed he was to remain free. (Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sanford)

In 1854, Scott v. Sanford took place. Scott, a slave to the Emerson family, traveled to Minnesota with John Emerson. While there, his owner died and the court declared him free. However, at the Circuit of Appeals, it was ruled Scott was still property of the Emersons'. This decision stood, which declared that slaves are property. This was one infuriating cause of the Civil War.

Dred Scott Decision ruling was used in subsequent cases in the court. The decision on all blacks slaves or free

The Dred Scott case came at a very turbulent time in American history. It came

Sanford was another hot political issue. Dred Scott and his wife were taken to a free state by their master, and the ruling on this case stated that Scott was still legally bound to his master and must remain a slave. This decision was based on three main factors. The first factor was that Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in Federal court. The second factor was that it was unconstitutional for Congress to outlaw slavery in a territory. The last factor stated that although Scott and his family were heading in and out of Free states, it did not affect their standing as slaves.

The final ruling on the case was that Scott was denied his freedom. The court based their decision on the fact that the constitution did not give any rights and that black people were not citizens of the U.S. Without a doubt there was outrage among the black communities in the North, and everywhere else. Blacks in the North started meeting in conventions and gathering discussing how unjust the ruling was and how outraged they were over the decision. The court's ruling came as a "victory" for southerners, because it showed slaves that the road to freedom would not come as easy as a court case.

In a Court in St. Louis, Dred Scott and his wife, Harriet, were slaves. They tried to sue to get their freedom on the ground that they lived on. Instead, the ignorance of the Court did not guarantee their freedom because according to the Constitution, they are their master's property. At the same time, the Court also ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. According to the Court's opinion, no slave had the right to be a citizen of the United States and could not expect or have any protection from the Federal Government or any of the courts and the opinion also stated that the Congress does not have any right to ban slavery. It was then considered by the legal scholars to be the worst ever provided by the Supreme Court ever.

The feeling of freedom and opportunity is something that workers, farmers, and slaves dreamed of their whole lives. The Constitution of the United States of America is a document that brought together all of the nation’s governments under one branch in 1788 and was intended to create freedom and equality for everyone. However, it did not quite work out that way. The Founding Fathers were the people who wrote the preamble. The Preamble to the United States Constitution is the introduction to the Constitution, and it is hypocritical because it excluded a number of people, such as farmers, enslaved African Americans and workers when it was formed.

A reason why this may be true is because the Constitution or Bill of Rights is clearly towards the citizens of the United States of America. According to www.laws.com, ““We the people” is defined as an “interaction between the Constitution and the citizens of the U.S.”. This may be the case at this point in time, but back then it most likely was not. In contrast, this claim implies that only citizens of America as in we the people, were or should be entitled to be treated equally. However, at the time (of the century) certain groups of people weren't considered citizens just because of their race, gender, or other categorization. Everyone in the United States should be treated with respect and equality, citizen or

The whole sense that the Founders thought every human was equal was quite preposterous if thought about. Generally, most Americans are taught that the founders started this country because they wanted a place to be free. However, what these people aren’t being taught is that a lot of the labor that it took to build this country was the work of slaves. And what are slaves? They are workers who are kept at their place against their will.

     One of the final cause of the Civil was involved a slave named Dred Scott. Dred Scott was an enslaved person owned by John Emerson. Emerson took Dred Scott from Missouri to Illinois, a free state. They then moved back to Missouri, which was a slave state under the Missouri Compromise. In 1857 Dred Scott sued the state of Missouri on the claim that by living in a free state, he was free and had earned his freedom. Scott won that case, but the ruling was later overturn by the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the compromises including the Missouri Compromise were unconstitutional and that African Americans were not United State citizens and could not be a citizen. Slaves were considered property and had no rights.