James Buchanan Vs. Dred Scott Case

“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

Although the Dred Scott case broke the Missouri Compromise which placed restrictions on slavery in some U.S. territories. This case became a rallying point for the abolitionists leading to the election of Abraham Lincoln. The Dred Scott case eventually got people to stop protesting slavery, but the Court had broken the Missouri Compromise and people in the North were outraged. The Dred Scott decision is important because although it was intended to settle the question of slavery, it adopted a strong view and let

Dred Scott (c. 1799 – September 17, 1858) was an enslaved African American man in the United States who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom and that of his wife and their two daughters in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as the "Dred Scott Decision". Scott claimed that he and his wife should be granted their freedom because they had lived in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory for four years, where slavery was illegal. The United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott 's temporary

When Dred Scott v. Sandford was decided in 1857, it made an enormous impact on the United States. It riled up both pro- and anti-slavery Americans. It angered many Americans in an extreme example of judicial activism. Some say it made the Civil War inevitable. By the time the dust had settled and the 13th and 14th Amendments reversed the Court’s decision, Dred Scott could be considered one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. And yet, although the case was egregiously wrong, it still can be considered a “great case”.

In 1856, a Presidential election occurred in the United States at a crucial period. Sectionalism was at an all time high and a leader was needed to unite the country. However, the man who won the election did not prove to be this leader. Instead, his platform was based on a deliberate failure to lead. Due to James Buchanan’s position that supported popular sovereignty in the expanding United States, the country divided even further over the topic of slavery to the point that the Civil War became inevitable.

On March 6, 1857 the controversial ruling of the Dred Scott vs. Stanford case was given causing dissention in the nation. The Supreme Court ruled over whether Dred Scott was a free slave and if slavery will expand to the new territories. The Court permitted slavery in the New Territories. It declared Scott was property, and therefore he was not free based on the Fifth Amendment, which says the right to property cannot be infringed upon. This meant he was not a free man even though he had returned from a free state. The Court decided that slaves were not American citizens. Meaning Scott or any other slave did not have the right to sue in federal court. This caused major issues between four major political groups: the Fire Eaters, the

The case also sparked the northern states as with glee in the south. The american public reacted very strongly and the anti slavery group thought the would spread terribly. Also Abraham Lincoln said that slaves were property and had no rights. The courts said that Scott was not free based on living in either Illinois or Wisconsin because he was not considered a person under the U.S. Constitution In the opinion of the justices, black people were not even considered citizens when the Constitution was written in 1787. Dred Scott was the property of his owner, and property could not be taken from a person. With the support of friends, the Scott’s survived eleven years of disappointing litigation. After those long eleven years, Mrs. Emerson and her brother gave

On March 6, 1857, two days after the inauguration of Buchanan, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott, born a slave in Virginia in about 1800, was taken to St. Louis in 1830 and sold, relocated to Illinois, then to the Wisconsin Territory, and finally back to St. Louis in 1842. While in the Wisconsin Territory, Scott eventually married and had two daughters. After the death of his owner, in 1843, Scott aggressively tried to buy his freedom. In 1846, Harriet Scott influenced her husband to file suit in the Missouri courts, claiming residence in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory made him a free African American. A jury decided in his favor, but state Supreme Court ruled against him. When the case rose on appeal to the Supreme Court, the nation apprehensively awaited the decision on whether freedom once granted could be lost by

The supreme court case Dred Scott v. Sanford had two issues standing before it. First, Was Dred Scott a citizen of the US and thereby entitled to sue in federal court for the protection of his rights? Second, Did Scott’s residence in free territory make him free? Dred Scott was an African American man born into slavery in Missouri who was the property of Dr. Emerson. Although, Emerson died which gave Scott the chance to sue Emerson’s widow in a Missouri court to declare him free. After the court’s debate, the decision was made that, Dred Scott, was still property and he had no right to be in the supreme court. The south was delighted from this choice in the supreme court. On the other hand, the north was very angry with this decision. The decision

Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri, owned by the Sandford family. After a couple of years, his owner, Dr. John Emerson, moved him into a Wisconsin Territory. After the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was drafted, slavery was no longer permitted in the area Scott was presiding in. After finding out that the Wisconsin Territory was a free area, Dred Scott went back to Missouri to sue for his freedom. He thought since he was living in a free territory, he was technically a free man. The Supreme Court ruled that Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sew in court. It was also ruled that the Congress did not have enough power to ban slaver in United States territories. Lastly, the court declared

In a Court in St. Louis, Dred Scott and his wife, Harriet, were slaves. They tried to sue to get their freedom on the ground that they lived on. Instead, the ignorance of the Court did not guarantee their freedom because according to the Constitution, they are their master's property. At the same time, the Court also ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. According to the Court's opinion, no slave had the right to be a citizen of the United States and could not expect or have any protection from the Federal Government or any of the courts and the opinion also stated that the Congress does not have any right to ban slavery. It was then considered by the legal scholars to be the worst ever provided by the Supreme Court ever.

There were a number of things that went into effect after the ruling of Dred Scott. The new president had gone into office but not yet been inaugurated. There had always been discussions about the political climate during the decision, and if in fact President Buchanan swayed the decision. President Buchanan did write a letter to one of the chief justice’s where he expressed a desire both for the case to be decided before March 1857, and for a verdict that would place the debate on slavery beyond politics and thereby calm popular agitation on the subject, Buchanan had gone further and persuaded another Associate Justice – who was from the North – to vote with the Southern majority (Richards). The decision accounted for most of the Republican gain; victories by “slave power” had produced a backlash that strengthened its deadliest enemies of the north (McPherson 188).

James Buchanan was part of the democratic party and his salary was $25,000 yearly. He was the first president to make an effort to abolish slavery. His immediate family never “owned” a slave but his uncle did and James Buchanan always thought that it was wrong. He tried to destroy slavery but, the congress wasn't willing to approve of his idea. James Buchanan's votes were affected because he wanted to eliminate slavery and that is why the votes were so close. In the 12 states where slavery was legal, not one person voted for the other candidate, and Buchanan took the majority of votes in those states. (Burgan 52)

     One of the final cause of the Civil was involved a slave named Dred Scott. Dred Scott was an enslaved person owned by John Emerson. Emerson took Dred Scott from Missouri to Illinois, a free state. They then moved back to Missouri, which was a slave state under the Missouri Compromise. In 1857 Dred Scott sued the state of Missouri on the claim that by living in a free state, he was free and had earned his freedom. Scott won that case, but the ruling was later overturn by the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the compromises including the Missouri Compromise were unconstitutional and that African Americans were not United State citizens and could not be a citizen. Slaves were considered property and had no rights.