Dred Scott Vs. Sanford Case

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

Around the 1850’s, tension between the Northern states and the Southern states was rising. The issue of slavery was a conflict that greatly contributed to this tension. The Northern and Southern people had very different views on slavery. Most of the Northern people thought that slavery was wrong, while the Southern people thought that slavery was justified. During this time, a court case filed by a black slave against his white slave master occurred and it widened the gap between them even more. The idea of a black man suing for his freedom was ridiculous to most of the Southern people. My second paragraph is about Dred Scott’s life. It will mostly be about his life before the case. The third paragraph will be information about the case

Sandford). Chief Justice Taney, who happened to be a former slave owner, gave the majority opinion, 7-2, ruling against Dred Scott. He also said as a person of African descent, Dred Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in federal court. He added that Scott had never been free, since slaves were considered personal property (Dred Scott v. Sanford 63).

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.

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.

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

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

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.

After years in the court system the Justices, in a 7-2 vote, finally concluded four major points that would effect the nation in the years leading up to the Civil War. First, the Supreme Court found that African Americans were not citizens. Chief Justice Roger Taney, from Maryland, and a former slaveowner who eventually emancipated his slaves wrote that slaves were “to be bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it.” In other words Scott was not a citizen and therefore didn’t even have the right to have his case heard in a court of law.2 This finding was in direct opposition of some northern states, who’s constitutions had declared free black men citizens. Secondly, since slaves are property, the property owner has the right to move their property to or through free states and territories.

The landmark Supreme Court cases of Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas have had a tremendous effect on the struggle for equal rights in America. These marker cases have set the precedent for cases dealing with the issue of civil equality for the last 150 years.

Following the death of Dr. Emerson, Dred Scott sued Mrs. Emerson in Missouri court because he desired his freedom. Under Dr. Emerson in Illinois, Dred had been a slave, but since him and his family currently lived in a state where slavery was banned, he rightfully deserved his freedom. Although the jury declared Scott free in 1850, Missouri reversed the law, claiming him as a slave under the law that Missouri governed, which remained a slave state at the time.

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)

In 1834, a surgeon Dr. John Emerson joined the US Army and was accompanied by his slave Dred Scott at a number of posts located in Illinois, the Wisconsin Territory, and Missouri. When Emerson died in 1846, Dred Scott sued for his freedom claiming that because since he had lived in territories where slavery was illegal, he was legally free. Soon the case finally went to the supreme court after being overruled by the Missouri Supreme Court. The court ruled that Dred Scott was still a slave and Roger.B.Taney, the chief of Justice at the time, declared that under the US Constitution terms on possession of property, Dred Scott wasn’t free because since slaves were “property” and a slave being freed after going to a free state would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment.The outcome of the Dred Scott case affected the United States stance on slavery. The supreme court's

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

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.