Dred Scott V. Sandford Essay

“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

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

Scott was an African American slave who sued unsuccessfully for his freedom, because he believed that he should be free based on the territory he was living in. Congress examined this case and came to the conclusion that since Scott was not a citizen of the United States, he did not have the authority to sue the federal court. This case caused great tension within the nation because congress’ decision not only made it seem like they were accepting slavery but it contradicted original compromises such as the Missouri Compromise. The ruling of the Missouri compromise being unconstitutional was an extreme upset to the northerners, because this made way for a greater opportunity of slavery within the nation. The growing tensions between the north and south were increasing with every decision made involving the issue of slavery.

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.

Dred Scott was an African-American who traveled to the North with his owners and when they attempted to sue his owners for slavery for it was not allowed in the free state that they went to. The case gained so much momentum that it was brought to the Supreme Court to rule upon. The court ruled in 7-2 deinging Dred Scott 's request and ruling against congress saying it was unconstitutional. The court’s rationale is that a black man no matter in the north or south “could never be considered citizens of the United States or be protected by the United States Constitution” The decision impacted the sectional crisis by outraging both Republicans and Abolitionist movements that were gaining momentum in the North. The argument about allowing slavery into new states also started radicals like John Brown to try and start a slave rebellion when he committed to raiding Harpers Ferry. The debate of allowing or getting rid of Slavery has stopped being diplomatic and started to turn violent.

The Dred Scott Case had a huge impact on the United States as it is today. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments have called it the worst Supreme Court decision ever rendered and was later overturned. The Dred Scott Decision was a key case regarding the issue of slavery; the case started as a slave seeking his rightful freedom and mushroomed into a whole lot more. 65

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.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education:""Busing transported the kids to school and back from school. The court immediately stated thatbusing was just an appropriate legal tool for illegal segregation. Whites and blacks had to ridedifferent buses to school. The kids should be able to ride whatever bus they want not because ofthe color of their skin. People should not have judged black because of their color."the Court ruledbusing was an appropriate legal tool for addressing illegal segregation of theschools"(CasebriefsTM, no date)""The court made many decisions toward the unfair treatment toward colored people. In Dred Scott v.Sanford a slave was sued for his freedom and was told he was the property of his master. In Lovingv. Virginia the court ruled against inter-racial marriage and stated that marriage was a fundamentalright. In Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education the court stated that busing is anappropriate legal tool to address illegal segregation of the schools. Racism is still a problem in theworld today, it should not happen anymore however it

Taney, a supporter of the South and slavery, wrote the Court’s majority opinion. Taney came to the conclusion that Scott lacked legal standing because he lacked citizenship, as did all former slaves. At the time the Constitution was adopted, Taney claimed, blacks “had for more than a century been regarded as . . . so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” On the issue of Scott’s residency, Taney argued that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 deprived citizens of property by ruling out slavery in selected states, an action “not warranted by the Constitution.” The result was that Chief Justice Taney and the rest of the Supreme Court declared an act of Congress unconstitutional for the first time since Marbury v. Madison (1803). Congress revoked the Missouri Compromise in the Kansas-Nebraska Act three years earlier, but the Dred Scott decision challenged the concept of popular rule. If Congress itself would not exclude slavery from a territory, then it seemed neither could a territorial government created by

     The Missouri Compromise left much ambiguity regarding specific cases, so the rulings of the courts played a major role in the political grey areas; thus, slavery was a very sensitive issue in the Supreme courts as well as in Congress. Dred Scott, a slave, had been purchased by a citizen of Missouri. Scott and his master had spent time in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was prohibited. After his master¡¯s death in 1846, Dred Scott sued for his freedom, claiming that his journey to free soil and the fact that his master had died while he was in free soil had made him free. The Supreme Court, like the country itself, was very

“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is what comes to mind when we are in court or thinking about the constitution. That was not the case in the Dred Scott V. Sanford decision because Dred Scott was African American and a slave suing for his freedom. Dred Scott was an early, persistent steadfast, fighter for African American civil rights. “The Dred Scott decision declares two propositions—first, that a Negro cannot sue the U.S. Courts; and secondly, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the Territories.” Dred Scott forced the Supreme Court to fully articulate its stance on slavery; the results of which had long standing effects. His case in the Supreme Court brought heated opinions from both the North and the South regarding states’ rights and slave rights. Both sides had a huge debate both regarding the issue using very valid arguments towards the Dred Scott case.

The Dred Scott Decision was a famous Supreme Court case, deciding over the decision of slavery was legal in the newly discovered territory. It debated over the decision of whether it was legal for slaveholders to take their property into the newly formed territory or whether their property should be freed in this process. The ruling concluded in 1857 and affirmed that slaveholders should have the right to take their slaves to the west . The decision took three attempts to finally reach a conclusion about whether an African American living in recently developed land should be considered free or not. Below I will discuss the life of Dred Scott, the Scott v. Emerson Case, the Scott v. Sandford Case, the eradicating of slavery, and the path to black citizenship in the proceeding decades.

The Dred Scott vs. Sanford case was a huge decision in the history of our country. Dred Scott was a slave who was owned by the Sanford family. The Sanford family moved Scott to a Wisconsin territory, where slavery was prohibited under the Missouri Compromise, where he lived for 4 years working on and off to raise money for him and his family’s freedom. Later on, the Sanford family moved him back to St. Louis where Scott tried to buy him and his family freedom but was denied by the Sanford family. Scott sued the Sanford’s and made a case that he and his family lived in a free area for an extended period of time making him legally free. The state court declared him free but the wages that Scott had were withheld by the Sanford family who then appealed the decision to make Scott free to the Missouri Court. The Missouri Court overturned the decision to make Scott free and ruled in favor of the Sanford’s. Scott then sued the Sanford’s again for physical abuse and the court would not rule on it because they said Scott was regarded as a slave in Missouri territory.

Dred Scott was an enslaved African American from Southampton, Virginia. Virginia at that time was a slave state. In 1843, Dred Scott traveled with his owner, John Emerson, who was an army surgeon, from a slave sate to Missouri. When John Emerson died in a slave state, Scott and his wife decided to sue to win their freedom in St. Louis federal Court. Because of his race, Dred Scott was denied to sue because he was stateless. The court case was argued on February 11-17th, 1856 and then reargued in December 15-17th. The case was then decided on March 6th, 1857 in the Missouri territory. The reasoning given by the Supreme Court for making their decision was that, enslaved African race were not intended to be included in the constitution, his racial background, and because slaves were considered as properties. So because

Dred Scott was a slave who had lived with his master in Missouri. He lived in Illinois, a free state, and the Wisconsin Territory for five years. He went to court for his freedom on the basis of his long residence on free soil. Two state courts made two opposing decisions, so Scott went to the Supreme Court in 1857. The Supreme Court ruled that since a slave was private property, he could be taken into any territory and legally held there. The judge appointed to Scott's case, Justice Roger Brooke Taney, decided that Scott couldn't bring a case to court because he wasn't a US citizen, the law declared slaves as property and owners could move their property anywhere, the Missouri Compromise was unlawful, and Congress didn't have enough power to decide where slavery could be permitted. This decision meant that all territories were able to have slavery and northern lawmakers wouldn't be able to keep it out of the territories.