Dred Scott 's The Supreme Court Of The United States

The Dred Scott Decision of 1857 ruled that African-Americans, even ones who were not enslaved, were not protected under The Constitution and could never be citizens. This brings up questions that will be answered in this paper. Should slaves be American citizens? Is it morally correct for one to own another human? Does the Dred Scott decision contradict The Declaration of Independence which states that every man is created equal?

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.”#

“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

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.

In 1832, Dr. John Emerson purchased a thirty year old male slave, Dred Scott, from the Blow family; Emerson moved from the southern territory of Alabama into the Northern territory of Illinois with Dred Scott in tow (VanderVelde 4). “Slavery did exist in Illinois, yet Emerson had brought his

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

There were immensely strong arguments on both sides, regarding Dred Scott and his owner, John Sanford. Sanford believed that Scott should remain a slave because he does not deserve the same rights as whites. Firstly, it was argued that “Dred Scott was still a slave and no master's property rights could be limited or taken away by a state or federal law”. Many people against Scott argued that this case violates the fifth amendment. It states, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” This amendment provides a strong argument against Dred Scott. Essentially, these quotes talk about how Scott is property and Sanford would not sell him without recompense. Another argument involves where Scott and Sanford were located during his slavery. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice, argued, “In regard to the issue of Scott's becoming free when he moved to the free State of Illinois, the laws of the

In 1846, a slave living in Missouri named Dred Scott, sued for his freedom on the basis that he had lived for a total of seven years in territories that were closed to slavery. Scott's owner had been an army doctor named John Emerson. Emerson's position had required him to move several times in a relatively short amount of time. During his time with Emerson, Scott had lived in the state of Illinois, which was

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

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

During the time of Dred Scott’s residency in Missouri, a slave state, he attempted to buy his and his family’s freedom from Mrs. Emerson, but she refused. This led into the Scott vs. Emerson case, which occurred on April 6, 1946, a petition against the Missouri circuit court claiming that Dred Scott lived in free territory of Illinois . The court testified that while living in a free territory slaves should be emancipated. However, during the case, court considered it as insufficient, therefore, denying Scott’s demand for freedom . It stated that… The Scott’s attempt to earn their freedom was unaccepted and that Mrs. Emerson should be allowed to retain her slaves . Later in April 1846, after the death of Dr. Emerson, Dred Scott offered to compensate Mrs. Emerson with $300, but she turned that offer down, and kept possession of Dred Scott .

I am an enslaved African American bought by an army surgeon. My owner’s name is John Emerson. Emerson bought me in Missouri, but took me and his family with him to an army base in Illinois. Illinois is above the North latitude 36 degrees 30’N, so it is a free state. We did not stay very long in Illinois because Emerson was called to Wisconsin Territory which is also a free slave state. I can’t believe that I have been in TWO free states, yet I am still be counted as a slave. Once Emerson was done in Wisconsin he packed up his family and me, and went back to Missouri. Soon after we returned Emerson passed away. Emerson was a loyal owner. Since I am property of Emerson and he is now deceased what am I? Free? Still a slave? So back in 1846, I sued for my freedom from Emerson’s wife-Irene.

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.

I had been taken to free territories during my time with Mr. Emerson, lived there for many years I did. When Mr. Emerson died I thought that since I had been living in territory that didn’t allow slavery, that I would be free. Luckily, I had a couple of abolitionist friends who secured a lawyer for my person. Apparently no one could come to a decision, and so, after roughly ten years in those courtrooms, I had been given audience with the Supreme Court.