Dred Scott Decision Case Study

Dred Scott was a slave whose owner stole him from Missouri and took him to many free areas in different territories. Scott went to court and demanded that he be deemed a free man because he was living in a free state (Illinois). The court ruled against Scott, because he was black and it was said that he could never be a

In 1853, Dred Scott filed against his new owner John Stanford. This time he went before the Federal Court. Dred Scott claimed that the case belonged in federal court on the grounds of diversity jurisdiction – Article III of the U.S. Constitution. He argued that since he was a resident of Missouri and john Stanford was a resident of New York the issue of illegal enslavement was not within the jurisdiction of either state. The Court allowed the case but in the end ruled in favor of Stanford and Dred Scott appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Source 2: The origin of the source is of value because it is a secondary source written by James A. Rawley titled Race and Politics, 1979. Rawley, a historian who in his book questions the importance of race but the origin is also limited because it only expresses Rawley’s investigation and ideas upon the case. The purpose of the source is valuable because it further investigates the questions and issues raised by Justice Taney after reviewing the case, and James Rawley argues against each question. The purpose of this source also limited, because it does not provide eight other justices view concerning the questions that were raised by Chief Justice Taney. The content of this source is valuable because it further examines the two acts, Kansas-Nebraska Act and Missouri Compromise, that were eliminated by Taney. The content of this source is also limited, because it only expresses Rawley’s ideas and not others.

Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford in March 1857. The case had been brought before the court by Dred Scott. He was a slave who had lived with his owner in a free state before returning to the slave state of Missouri. Dred Scott argued that the time spent in these locations made him a free African-American. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney disagreed. He wrote that the court found that no black, free or slave, could claim U.S. citizenship, and therefore blacks were unable to petition the court for their freedom. This decision was one of the factors that caused the Civil War.

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

In 1846 Scott sued his master for his freedom, asserting that his sojourns in free jurisdictions made him free. After numerous delays, trials, and retrials, the case reached the Supreme Court in 1856. The court responded with nine separate opinions, and Chief Justice Roger Brook Taney delivered the deciding opinion. The ruling was both complex and controversial: the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress did not have authority to limit the expansion of slavery; slavery was found to be legal in the territories until the citizens voted for or against it; and Africans and their descendants were found to be ineligible for citizenship in the United States as the framers of the Constitution had not viewed Africans as citizens. Since African Americans were not viewed by the court as citizens, they could not file suit. Despite the finality of the court 's

First of all, Dred Scott case was a simple trial arguing for individual rights. A black slave named Dred Scott, who served his master for five years in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory, sued for freedom on the basis of long-term residence. However, the Supreme Court made this case a complex political issue. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney from Maryland argued that since Scott is a slave and not a citizen,they do not have the right to sue according to the Fifth Amendment (The American Pageant, Pg.417). The Fifth

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

　　　　There were two Justices, McLean and Curtis, who disagreed. They argued that once the Court determined it had no jurisdiction to hear case, it had to dismiss it, not make a ruling. They also felt there was no Constitutional basis for the claim that blacks could not be citizens. When the Constitution was ratified, black men could vote in five of 13 states. This made them citizens of their states as well as the U.S (The Supreme Court)

“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

new slaves in from places. (Lawson, 1987, 21-29) The court still was denying Dred Scotts freedom. Shortly

I hope the people of the United States understand what the Dred Scott decision will mean for the country. In my opinion it will have a negative impact on the county due to issues surrounding slavery. One of the main reasons being it shows where the government stands on the issues of slavery. It has tested the constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Law and the Missouri Compromise and has unjustly over looked our forefathers belief that all men are made equally.

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.

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 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