Dred Scott Vs. Sanford Supreme Court Case Analysis

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

　　　　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

Dred Scott was a slave born in Southampton County Virginia and served the Peter Blow family growing up. As an adult he moved with the Blow family to St Louis Missouri and was sold to Dr. John Emerson. Dr. Emerson was an army surgeon. He was appointed to many different military posts and took Scott along with him, from Fort Armstrong in Illinois to Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin territory. Both of these forts were on

Louis, Missouri, where they ran a boarding house.[6] Dred Scott was sold to Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon serving in the United States Army. After Scott learned he would be sold to Dr. Emerson and relocated to Rock Island, Illinois, he attempted to run away. His decision to do so was spurred by a distaste he had previously developed for Dr. Emerson. Scott was temporarily successful in his escape as he, much like many other runaway slaves during this time period, "never tried to distance his pursuers, but dodged around among his fellow slaves as long as possible." Eventually, he was captured in the "Lucas Swamps" of Missouri and taken back.[7] Blow died in 1832, and historians debate whether Scott was sold to Emerson before or after Blow 's death. Some believe that Scott was sold in 1831, while others point to a number of slaves in Blow 's estate after his death were sold to Emerson, among them was one with a name given as Sam, who may be the same person as Scott.[1]

The Dred Scott case came at a very turbulent time in American history. It came

Dred Scott was born as a slave in the state of Virginia around the year 1800. His owners for most of his young life were Peter and Elizabeth Taylor Blow. In 1818, the Blow family and some of their slaves including Scott moved to a cotton plantation in Alabama where they lived for the next twelve years (“Dred Scott”). In 1830, the Blow family and there slaves relocated to St. Louis Missouri. The Blow family had given up plantation farmers and decided to open a hotel called the Jefferson Hotel (“Dred Scott”). In the next two year both Peter and his wife Elizabeth Blow died and Dred was sold to U.S. Army doctor named John Emerson were he became his servant (“Dred Scott Biography”).

To what extent did Dred Scott decision was examined from an incorrect view of the judicial role and viewed as morally incorrect? Due to Chief Justice Taney’s unacceptable error of not reviewing the case through law, the decision led the nation split into two and eventually caused in American Civil War. In this investigation, Chief Justice Taney, who held the majority of votes, actions and behaviors prior of the case will be evaluated for its impact upon a simple freedom case. This investigation will also focus on three questions that Justice Taney claimed after reviewing the case and how it was or was not constitutional. Research will be done in books about Dred Scott’s background and what he has done throughout his life, a reference

The Dred Scott case took place in 1857. Dred Scott sued in federal court claiming that he was a free citizen. He had been taken to a slave-free territory by his owner, who was an army doctor (history.com). Since the state was free he also declared that he too was free, so Scott sued. He said that he was a citizen of Missouri and a free man. This case became a legal nightmare. This case was basically trying to figure out if slavery should be allowed in the south or not (history.com). Scott tried to gain his freedom, but it the trial did not turn out so well.

The Dred Scott case was a large part of the Debates of 1858. This was a case about a slave named Dred Scott who lived in a free state (slavery was prohibited) but was not entitled to his freedom. The Dred Scott decision was that blacks could not sue in the U.S courts and that congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories of the west. Lincoln was opposed to the Dred Scott decision and would not submit to it because it “deprives the negro of the rights and privileges of citizenship.” (book). He openly criticized the decision and stated that blacks were entitled to the same freedom whites have. He did use this opportunity to endorse his colonization idea though. Douglas’s view on this case was a bit different. Douglas supported the Dred Scott decision but advocated popular sovereignty which contradicted one another. Douglas responded to accusations of this contradiction by reformulating his popular sovereignty idea. His reformulation became known as the Freeport Doctrine which stated that settlers would exclude slavery from a territory by not adopting local legislation. What he meant is that even if territorial governments supported the supreme court decision in the case of Dred Scott and did not prohibit slavery, municipalities could still do so by failing to support government. In the first debate on August 12th Douglas supported his supporting of the Dred Scott case with this statement: “I ask you, are you in favor of conferring upon the negro the rights and

Scott would be sold to John Emerson, whom was a surgeon serving in the army. In 1836 Dr. Emerson began his stationing in the free states. In 1837 Dred met his wife Harriet, in Wisconsin (a free state). The two of them were able to stay together in this free state while Mr. Emerson left them behind. In 1840 they all moved back to Missouri. Dr. Emerson died in the army and the Scotts were now property of Mr. Emerson’s widow. In 1846 Dred attempted to buy his and his wives freedom for Mrs. Emerson to no prevail. After that Dred took matter into his own hands and filed legal suit in the St. Louis Circuit court, where it all began.

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

Before the Civil War civil rights excluded slaves which were deemed property. The Supreme Court established a person of African descent wether they be a slave or freed was not a citizen of the United States in the Dred Scott vs Sanford case of 1857 (law.cornell.edu). By stating that people who had an African descent were not citizens, the

A slave is someone who is owned by another human. They do as they are told to do by their owners. African Americans had an unfair start in America, by being captured and brought over from Africa to be slaves. Do you know how slaves were treated? The conditions and treatment of slaves were different fromthe average American. Do you know how slavery came to an end? The slaves receivedtheir freedom in different types of ways. Before long, slavery was ended and they were set free to live their lives according to their own choice.

In 1619, the Dutch introduced the first enslaved Africans to America aiding in creating the inhumane slavery system in which America thrived and divided on. The first enslaved African peoples of America were transported to the Northern American colony of Jamestown, Virginia to provide free labor and further profitable production of indigo, tobacco, and cotton. The slavery system was practiced throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth century, and through sweat, blood, and tears enslaved African Americans unwilfully helped shaped the fiscal make-up of the United States of America. As a result, African peoples were involuntarily dispersed and exploited for the economic gain of the American peoples. In the 1850s, the Union’s blooming movement of the abolition of slavery collided with the Confederate’s ideal to expand slavery in America, and the nation America divided into the Civil War of 1861. Due to Northern victory, over four million enslaved Africans were emancipated, and the reconstruction of the Land of the Free started.