Dred Scott V. Sandford Summary

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

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

While he was with his owner he was living living in a free territory which meant he was not really a slave. But his owner had moved back into a southern slave state once again. When living in that slave state his owner had died which had forced him back into slavery. This unjustly act by southerners had led him to contacting abolitionists and helping him file a lawsuit. This lawsuit was so big that it made its way to Washington D.C and the supreme court had to make a decision for Dred Scott.

Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott moved North with his master and sues claiming that because he was in free territory, he was no longer a slave. The case goes to the Supreme Court and they rule in favor of Dred Scott’s master and the court says that not only is Dred Scott not free, but he cannot even bring a case to court. Many see this as the Federal Government backing the institution of slavery. The Dred Scott decision was a major win for the South and Pro-slavery citizens. This is an example of slaves having no rights. Eventually in 1861, war broke out between the Union(North) and the confederacy(South) when the confederacy attacked Fort Sumter. Each side had different ideas. The Union wanted to make all men free and the Confederacy wanted

It has been presented to the Supreme Court of the United States of America that Mr. Dred Scott pleas for freedom from his slave master, Mr. Sanford. Initially Mr. Scott was owned by Dr. Emerson until Mr. Emerson’s death when Scott was sold to Mr. Sanford. Under intense scrutiny and discernment it has been decided by the Supreme Court that Mr. Dred Scott has the inalienable right to be a free citizen of the United States of America. Scott is a slave, owned by Mr. and Mrs. John Emerson since 1836. Scott currently resides in St. Louis, Missouri as of 1830. Mr. Dred Scott has presided residence in both Illinois and Wisconsin Territory, accompanied by his slaveholder. The Illinois and Wisconsin Territories are free, meaning that no man nor woman can be private property of another. Because of this, Mr. Emerson has no control nor jurisdiction over Scott. Mr. Scott resided in free territory for several years, therefore, he must leave this courtroom as a free man. Although slavery is not abolished in the South, it is abolished in both of the territories that Scott visited during his involvement with Mr. Emerson, making it his right to be free. It is of the slaveholder’s duty to not enter the territories of Illinois and Wisconsin expecting his slave to maintain in his possession. The responsibility is left on Mr. Emerson and it is due to his ignorance that his slave will gain freedom today. Slavery is prohibited in both territories, making it unreasonable that a man should remain a

During the course of time, slaves had slave owners. Slaves were not considered people but property. They also were not considered American citizens, so it made more challenging to fight in the courts. Born in 1800, Dred Scott was a Missouri slave and was sold to the army surgeon named John Emerson in Saint Louis. From there, Scott was taken Illinois, a free state. As time passed Mr. Emerson died, so Scott decided to take legal action and sue Mr. Emerson’s wife for his freedom. Since his residence was on free soil, Illinois granted his freedom. (Dred Scott v. Sandford) Moreover, the court of law would argue that even if Scott was deemed free under the states he would still not be qualified as an American citizen because he was black. The court’s also viewed him as a property and the Fifth Amendment forbids Congress from taking property away from individuals without just compensation. So he had to prove to the courts that he was not a piece of property but a citizen. (McBride)

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is regarding a slave in Missouri, his name was Dred Scott who resided in Illinois from the years 1833 to 1843. Illinois was considered to be a free state at this time, he lived in an area of the Louisiana Territory, this was a place where slavery was completely forbidden from the Missouri Compromise in 1830. Eventually Scott returned to Missouri, after doing so he decided to sue the Missouri court for his freedom, he was unsuccessful. His argument was that he claimed residency in a free territory area and this would make him a free man. Since this did not work Scott brought a new suit in federal court. But Scott’s master maintained that since he was a pure-blooded Negro of the African descent and also the descendant

In the Supreme Court case, “The Dred Scott Decision of 1857”, Dred Scott, a Missouri slave, brought to Illinois by his owner, fought for him and his families freedom in the northern states where slavery was forbidden. While in Illinois Scott fought for his independance on the terms that him and his family now resided in a free state which declared him a free man. On March 6,1857, in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court denied Scott’s freedom. The Supreme Court stated that any African American was denied the right to have American citizenship. Due to the fact that Scott wasn’t considered an American citizen he did not have the right to sue in federal court. After the case had been finalized many African Americans and abolitionists were enraged

To begin with, James Buchanan supported the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Dred Scott and his fight for freedom. Dred Scott was a slave who was taken from where he was initially working in Missouri, to a new posts in Illinois and what are now some regions in Minnesota, by his owner. After being brought to these areas, Scott claimed that he was actually a free man, since he now stood on free territory. Calling attention to the courts, his pleas were recognized and he received a full hearing. After much debate, the Supreme Court concluded that since the Constitution did not recognize slaves as citizens of the United States, all slaves were considered property and would not be deemed

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

For countless amounts of years, Americans have fought a battle against discrimination. Discrimination goes all the way back to the time of slavery. There are several important civil rights cases and laws that have changed the United States forever. Civil rights can be defined as, “[t]he freedom to participate in the full life of the community—to vote, use public facilities, and exercise equal opportunity” (Morone and Kersh 115). Also, unlike civil liberties, which limits government action, “[c]ivil rights require government action to help secure individual rights…” (Morone and Kersh 115). The question is, what changed the people of the United States’ minds about political equality and how did government action protect or hurt

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

Dred Scott was a slave who desired freedom. Scott believed that he was considered free because he was once on free territory. He tried to petition and sue for still being “enslaved” when he was clearly on free land. The court decided that he had no right to petition because he couldn’t show that he was a U.S. citizen. He traveled north of the 36’30” line thus now being in a free state. The Missouri compromise was then labeled unconstitutional. The case eventually went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court’s decision was because Dred Scott was black it was considered that he was not a citizen and he could not sue. The decision encouraged abolitionists to speak out and for people to rage about anti slavery. A reason why people voted