Dred Scott Case Summary

The Dred Scott Decision of 1857 ruled that African-Americans, even ones who were not enslaved, were not protected under The Constitution and could never be citizens. This brings up questions that will be answered in this paper. Should slaves be American citizens? Is it morally correct for one to own another human? Does the Dred Scott decision contradict The Declaration of Independence which states that every man is created equal?

In March 5,1857, after deliberating for several months, Chief Justice Roger Taney issued the ruling. The Court determined, by a majority of seven to two, that Dred Scott and his family were still slaves. It stated that even if, the Scotts had traveled into free territory, moving back to St.Louis had made them slaves once more. However, The Court decided to go further and addressed other issues regarding slavery and blacks. On citizenship, the Court decided no black could ever be a citizen, in Taney's own words "slaves nor their descendants, whether... free or not, were then acknowledged as part of the people [citizens]"# According to this, Scott was only property , therefore he did not have the right to file suit, and as a result was never free. The Court also decided to rule the

“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

We are so accustomed to waking up every day without a care in the world. We can basically go wherever we like, eat wherever we like, sit wherever we like, and not have to worry about another person controlling our every move (unless it’s our parents of course)! Imagine a time, not too long ago, when just because of the color of your skin, you had an “owner” and were treated as a piece of property, instead of another human being. A time where you couldn’t go into certain places, sit in certain areas, let alone use the restroom, unless it was in a designated place for your particular skin color. You weren’t labeled as people, but as black or white. Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia and had to face these hardships his whole entire life. When he finally walked on to free soil where slavery was prohibited, he stayed and chose to still be with his owner. Once his owner died, he and his wife decided to sue for their freedom. Little did they know, that the rules only applied to certain people when they wanted them to.

While it might at first seem superfluous, one of the most important parts of the Fourteenth Amendment was that it provided a definition of who was a citizen of the United States. However, in the infamous Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Taney had held that, “A free negro of the African race… is not a ‘citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States,” and thus, only whites were entitled to constitutional rights. The

Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom. He said that because he was a slave taken to a free state, even though he was brought back to a slave state, made him free. The court ruled that a free or enslaved African American was not a U.S. citizen and they could not sue in federal court. Also, they ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. Abolitionists were not happy at the court’s decision.

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)

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

Dred Scott was a slave to Peter Blow family who suffered financial constraints then later sold Scott to a surgeon John Emerson. Emerson moved with Scott to Fort Snelling where slavery was not allowed by Missouri Compromise. During his period at Fort Snelling, Scott married Harriet Robinson a slave too with whom they had two children. Emerson and Scott’s family later moved back to St Louis in the year 1940 where they lived. In 1946 Dr. Emerson passed on, and Scott’s family was left behind with Emerson’s widow as their master. After Dr. Emerson demise, Scott sued Emerson’s family arguing that by him having stayed in Fort Snelling, he had attained his freedom while there and he was a free man. In sought of his freedom, the case was presented to State court, but unfortunately, he lost in case. The case was appealed, and in the year 1857, the case was ruled out by Chief Justice Roger Taney. In the ruling, the court ruled out that, Scotts was not allowed to claim any US citizenship as blacks who were salves or free were not allowed to do so. The ruling also claimed that Scotts had never been free as he was a slave and they were considered as personal property (Konig, Finkelman, & Bracey, 2010). The ruling led to consequences and effects in the US that affected the country politically, culturally and legally as outlined in the paper.

Many times during our class discussions and lectures we tried to examine the stages leading up to the succession and Civil War in America. During the critical time period of the middle 19th century, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision of the Supreme Court was one of those major treads on the pathway to secession. The man Dred Scott was taken to Missouri with Peter Blow as a slave from Virginia and sold. His new master from Missouri then moved to the free state of Illinois for a while, but later moved back to Missouri. Following his master 's passing, Scott asserted that since he had resided in a free state, he was inevitably a free citizen.

In the March of 1857 Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in a free state for many years, came before the Supreme Court to argue that he was entitled to emancipation. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that no black

One of the ways Southerners defended slavery was through legal means. Although the economic and religious aspects of slavery helped to directly support the moral argument of pro-slavery Southerners, the legal aspects of slavery served as visible victories and defending events in Southern philosophy. In 1831-1832, Virginia legislature debated and eventually defeated various emancipation proposals. This legislation was a turning point in the pro-slavery fight. An example of is is the Dred Scott Decision. An excellent example of the legal side to the Southern arguments and the Southern definition of popular sovereignty. With the Dred Scott Decision, the courts declared that the whole African American race had no legal standing as persons in courts also that all blacks were seen as property, and the Constitution protected property rights of the people, which includes slave owners. Moreover, pro-slavery Southerners

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.

     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.