Dred Scott V. Sandford Case Analysis

Unfortunately for the Scotts the circuit ruled in favor of Mrs. Emerson. The Scotts however were allowed to refile their suit and in 1850,in a third trial, Scott is declared a free man on the basis of having lived in non-slavery territories of Wisconsin and Illinois. Mrs. Emerson however filed an appeal and the Missouri Supreme Court returned Scott to slavery. After filing suit once more and losing the case, this time against John Sanford, Irene’s brother who was presumably Scotts new owner, Scott’s lawyers appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court in 1856.The Supreme Court’s decision would “affect not only him, but all black people in the United States.”#

Dred Scott was born into slavery around 1800 in Virginia. He was owned by Dr. John Emerson a surgeon who worked for the army. Dr. Emerson 's career took him, along with his other slaves, to the free territories of Illinois and Wisconsin. While in Wisconsin, Dred Scott married Harriet Robinson, who became property of Dr. Emerson, who also married Eliza Irene Sanford in 1838. When Dr. Emerson died, his slaves were in charge of his wife. Scott tried to buy his freedom and his family’s for $300, but Mrs. Emerson refused, motivating him to sue for his freedom. On April 8, 1846, Dred and Harriet Scott sued for liberty in a court of St. Louis County, Missouri. There were some precedents in the local jurisdiction of Missouri according to which if a slave returned to the State after having been in a free territory, he could remain still free; those precedents had confirmed the principle of "once free, always free".

　　　　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

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.

John F.A Sandford. This case was one of the most controversial cases leading up to the Civil War. This decision was issued in March 1857 by the United States Supreme Court. The decision included a slave man named Dred Scott. Dred Scott was a slave who lived in a free-state along with his owner. In front of the Supreme Court, he argued that since he spent time in a free state, he had the right to have freedom. The court then overruled his argument and decided that no slave could claim a U.S citizenship. Since they decided that no slaves could claim a U.S citizenship, African Americans had no ability to argue for their freedom due to the Supreme Court refusing to give permission. This decision raised the tensions between the North and South, making the abolitionists of slavery furious. Not only did the Dred Scott decision raise the tensions between both sides, but the states rights did

The Scott v. Sanford starts with Harriet and Dred Scott, Dred was a long-term slave, owned by Dr. John Emerson. Dred moved with Emerson army post to army post, due to Emerson was an army surgeon. Dred moved with him over the course of eleven years. In the year 1857, Emerson dies and Dred is left in a free-territory. Dred then went to a local court and sued for his freedom. On March 6th, Chief Justice Robert B. Tany spoke the majority opinion. The US Congress ruled that slaves were not citizens and they could not receive protection from the Federal Government or the Federal Courts (Supreme Court Archives). Also, that Congress had no authority to ban slavery from a federal territory. This created major problems and changes in the United States (Kelly, 2014).

An early event that sparked the fuse that led to South Carolina secession was the court case Dred Scott v. Sandford. This court case was a national debate over slavery. Dred Scott was born as a slave to the Peter Blow family and when the family sold Scott to Dr. John Emerson, he eventually moved to Illinois and Minnesota. By 1843 Scott sought freedom for his family and himself, he offered $300 to Emerson 's widow and when she refused, he went to St. Louis Circuit Court to filed a suit for their freedom. His first two trials was lost due to hearsay evidence and the rights of the slave owners must be uphold at all costs. However the question was

Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom from his master in a Missouri court in the year 1846.   As part of his arguments, Dred Scott claimed that he resided in Illinois which was a free state and part of the Louisiana

Then Bay relied on the testimony of Samuel Russell, who told the court that he had hired the Scotts from Mrs. Emerson, paying Mrs. Emerson’s father, Alexander Sanford, money for their use. The case of Dred Scott was about a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before he was brought back to the slave state of Missouri, Scott had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes that he would be granted his freedom. In the ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that slaves were not citizens of the United States, therefore Scott could not expect any protection from the Federal Government or the courts. The Opinion of the Federal Government stated that congress had no authority to ban slavery from a Federal

Imagine that you were forced to work your life away with no pay and horrible conditions. You have no freedoms and you were considered property . Congratulations you are now slave, and your kids and their kids will be slaves and it goes on for every. That is exactly what Dred Scott did not want to happen to him and his wife and kids. Dred Scott was a slave taken to a free territory and thinking he was freed he sued for his freedom and his wife and kids. This case the Dred Scott Case became a wedge that drove the North and South apart before the civil war showing the different morals and terms of justice between the two. This case was seen as brutal to the Northerners sentencing a emancipated man to slavery and justice to the Southerners being able to keep one of their slaves. This case will eventually along with other spark the civil war and lead to the Civil War that is thought to have originally to keep the union together, but then changed to a battle against slavery.

Dred Scott was a slave that lived in St. Louis who sued in a Missouri state court to prove that he and his family were entitled to their freedom. Scott then took his case to the United States Supreme Court, which would ultimately lead to the Civil War. First of all, Scott was born into slavery in Virginia and then moved to Missouri with his slave master in 1830. Scott’s master died a few years after, so Scott was bought from a man that lived in Illinois, which at the time was declared a free state. Scott did not try to proclaim his freedom then, nor in Wisconsin which also was a free state. He did not try again for his freedom. It was not until Scott’s slave owner died, and Dr. Emerson’s wife did not want to sell Scott, that Scott finally made a push for his freedom and sued for it.

Upon Emerson’s death in 1846, Dred Scott tried to purchase his freedom and the freedom of his family from Emerson’s wife who refused. Scott sued Emerson on the grounds that because he had lived in a free state and a fee territory he was entitled to his freedom. Scott lost the initial lawsuit in St. Louis, Missouri and won the second trail. The case

Dred Scott was an African American who had been a slave in Missouri, but starting from 1833 to 1843, he lived in Illinois, which was a free state, and a part of the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was outlawed. When he returned to Missouri, he tried to sue for his freedom by saying that by living in an area that was slavery free, it made him a free individual. Unable to win in the state court, he brought a new suit to the federal court. It wasn’t until 11 years after the original suit was brought up was it finally addressed by the Supreme Court. Some issues that were conversed in this case include: If an individual goes into a free state, does it mean the slaves are

Dred Scott, an enslaved African American from Virginia, worked most of his life on a cotton plantation in Alabama owned by Army surgeon, Dr. John Emerson. Scott went along with his owners to Illinois and later out to the Wisconsin Territory, where the act of slavery was illegal. Later on, the family moved back to Missouri where the doctor eventually died. After this experience, Dred Scott, with the help of antislavery lawyers and his old owners, filed for his freedom. Scott felt that he was a free man due to him once living in a free area for four years. Years passed until one fateful day when Scott’s case reached the Supreme Court.