Dred Scott Case Analysis

In the 1780s, there was a question of whether slavery would be tolerable in new territories to threaten the Union. Throughout the decades, many compromises were made to avoid disunion. But the Constitution was not clear on this subject which created quite the discussion nationwide when raised in 1857 before the Supreme Court in the form of the Dred Scott case. The Dred Scott decision was an eye-opener to Northerners that believed slavery was acceptable as long as it stayed in the South. If the decision took away any power Congress once had to regulate slavery in new territories, slavery could quickly expand into much of the western United States. Realizing that once slavery expanded into those territories, it could quickly spread into the once-free states. Many Northerners remained silent on the issue, this very possibility was too scary to ignore. Northerners who had not previously been against the South and against slavery began to realize that if they did not stop slavery now, they might never again have the chance. The growing fear in the North helped further contributed to an ongoing dispute between the two sides which eventually lead to the Civil War. A couple years after Chief Justice Taney read Scott v. Sandford decision, half of the Union had seceded and the nation was engaged in civil war. However, because of the passions it created on both sides, Taney 's decision certainly quickly accelerated the start of conflict. Even in 1865, as the long and bloody

Court ruled that Scott was not a citizen and thus had no right to sue. Their Finding was that slaves were

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

Dred Scott was an American slave who was taken first to Illinois, a free state, and then to Minnesota, a free territory, for an extended period of time, and then back to the slave state of Missouri. After his original master died, he sued for his freedom. He initially won his freedom from a Missouri lower court, but the decision was reversed by the Missouri Supreme Court and remanded to the trial court. Simultaneously, Scott had filed suit in federal court, where, after prevailing on the issue of his status as a citizen of Missouri, he lost a trial by jury. Scott appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which used the case to fundamentally change the legal balance of power in favor of slaveholders.

The Dred Scott Decision was a major court ruling having to do with slavery in the 1850s. Dred Scott was a slave who lived in Missouri. His owner, Army Dr. John Emerson, took him to the Illinois and Wisconsin Territory on tours of duty. His owner died after they returned to Missouri. Dred Scott sued for his freedom because he said he became a free man living in the free territory. The Dred Scott Decision was a major court case that stated a slave, or any black man, could be considered property anywhere, even in free states. This decision showed the United States that the Supreme Court favored slavery.

When the Western territory was created the Missouri Compromise was ignored and popular sovereignty was introduced to Kansas and Nebraska. Popular sovereignty was a completely different approach that allowed the people to choose if slavery would be allowed within the state. The Missouri Compromise of 1820, had kept the Union in stable condition for thirty-four years and the Kansas-Nebraska act simply overturned it in a matter of days.

In May of 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska act bill was passed by the U.S Congress. The bill was introduced by Senator Stephen A. Douglas (Discovering our Past; The History of the United States Early Years p.431 and 432). The bill gives the people of Kansas and Nebraska territory popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty is letting the people of the Kansas and Nebraska territory choose whether to allow slavery or not. The textbook(Discovering our Past; The History of the United States Early Years p. 432) states that “Douglas hoped to make his plans acceptable to both the North and South. He propose repealing the Missouri Compromise and letting the voters in each territory vote on whether or not to allow slavery” (notes) Kansas with slavery would

Dred Scott was an African American man born into slavery around 1800. He wanted what all enslaved people wanted. He wanted his freedom. Dred Scott vs. Stanford was a landmark Supreme court case that was a major player in the secession of the southern states. The bravery, courage and determination of Dred Scott was one of the the first steps in a long road to freedom.

On March 6, 1857 the controversial ruling of the Dred Scott vs. Stanford case was given causing dissention in the nation. The Supreme Court ruled over whether Dred Scott was a free slave and if slavery will expand to the new territories. The Court permitted slavery in the New Territories. It declared Scott was property, and therefore he was not free based on the Fifth Amendment, which says the right to property cannot be infringed upon. This meant he was not a free man even though he had returned from a free state. The Court decided that slaves were not American citizens. Meaning Scott or any other slave did not have the right to sue in federal court. This caused major issues between four major political groups: the Fire Eaters, the

“In 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act overturned the Missouri Compromise’s use of latitude as the boundary between slave and free territory and instead, using the principle of popular sovereignty, decreed that the residents would determine whether the area became a free state or a slave state” (Foner & Garraty, 1991). The people that

The Kansas- Nebraska Act occurred in the year of 1854 but had many events leading to it in the previous years. The Missouri compromise occurred in 1820 and stated that there would be no slavery North of the 36 21’ latitude. Also the Compromise of 1850 passed the fugitive- slave act for the South and made slave trading stop in Washington DC for the North. These events lead up to the Kansas- Nebraska Act where Kansas and Nebraska could decide off of popular sovereignty to be a free or slave state. These events caused secession in the way that the events made the division more clear between the North and South. Though the government thought the act would help the relationships between the north and south they only made it worse.

Friction between the North and South had been steadily increasing since the Missouri compromise in 1820, which effectively divided the North and South into free and slave states, respectively. While this worked to delay further conflict, it merely postponed the conflict. The conflict was placed in the limelight yet again with Nat Turners slave rebellion in 1831, The failed WIlmot Proviso in 1846, and then later Henry Clay’s Compromise of 1850, which solely postponed violent confrontation yet again. The latest compromise successfully delayed confrontation for four more years, until “Bleeding Kansas”, which was, in fact, a direct result of the compromise of 1850. Three years after Bleeding Kansas, there was the horrible SCOTUS decision on the case of Dred Scott vs. Sanford, in which the supreme court essentially stated slaves were

As the early nineteenth century unfolded hostility to slavery surfaced on the national scene. The United States began to split because of views of the people became concreate causing the bitter disputes between the North and South to be more drastic due to economic issues of slavery and morals. The Constitution contributed in the separation that was occurring. For example the Compromise of 1850, was drafted by Henry Clay in an attempt to gloss over the confrontation between the slave states of the South and the free states of the North regarding the territory with slavery. Another example of a Supreme Court decision that is known as the Dred Scott Decision of 1857 declared that African Americans had no rights of citizenship hence slaves who escaped to free states were not free but still the property of their owners and would need to be returned. The decision of the United States to determine that once a person was a slave they could never become a citizen. This case instilled fear to anti-slavery groups that slavery would spread and it infuriated anti-slavery leaders causing the new Republican Party.

The in court case took place in Missouri, and the final decision was made in 1857. The people were outraged and so, many believe that this could have been a contributing factor to the starting of the civil war. Outbreaks took place, to try and set Dred Scott and his family free. In the end it never happened, and eight years after the final date, the civil war began.

It was the year of 1857 and a robust wind blew through the South as the air was filled with both victory and horrific disappointment. An ordinary man named Dred Scott began his journey for his rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Scott’s struggle for freedom would come to make him one of the most famous plaintiffs in American history and a worldwide symbol for emancipation. Scott happened to be of African descent which was an extremely difficult obstacle to live with in early America. The Dred Scott decision made by the supreme court in March of 1857 negatively impacted the United States by empowering the South, contributing to the secession, and expediting the Civil War.