Summary: Was Dred Scott Free Or A Slave?

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

Dred Scott was born into slavery around 1800 in Virginia. He was owned by Dr. John Emerson a surgeon who worked for the army. Dr. Emerson 's career took him, along with his other slaves, to the free territories of Illinois and Wisconsin. While in Wisconsin, Dred Scott married Harriet Robinson, who became property of Dr. Emerson, who also married Eliza Irene Sanford in 1838. When Dr. Emerson died, his slaves were in charge of his wife. Scott tried to buy his freedom and his family’s for $300, but Mrs. Emerson refused, motivating him to sue for his freedom. On April 8, 1846, Dred and Harriet Scott sued for liberty in a court of St. Louis County, Missouri. There were some precedents in the local jurisdiction of Missouri according to which if a slave returned to the State after having been in a free territory, he could remain still free; those precedents had confirmed the principle of "once free, always free".

　　　　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 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. Sanford case of 1857, popularly known as the "Dred Scott Decision." The case was based on the fact that although he and his wife Harriet Scott were slaves, they had lived with his slave owner, Dr. John Emerson, in states and territories where slavery was illegal according to both state laws and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, including Illinois and Minnesota. 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

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.

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.

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

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

     Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the court. He first explained that it was the view of the Court that “people of the Negro race” were not intended to be included under the term “citizen” in the Constitution. They were therefore, unable to claim any of the rights or privileges reserved for citizens (such as the right to due process of law). This decision alone made the case dismissible however in an effort to make more finite conclusions in the subject matter of slavery, the Court chose to provide a formal decision none the less. They concluded that regardless of Scott’s status outside Missouri, he remained a slave under Missouri Law. Taney reasoned that the provision to be able to amend the Constitution left room for righting those laws which some could consider unjust, but in its unaltered form, the Constitution was interpreted as it was intended to be by the framers at its adoption, which as he felt was “in relation to this unfortunate race,” noninclusive for a

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

Upon Emerson’s death in 1846, Dred Scott tried to purchase his freedom and the freedom of his family from Emerson’s wife who refused. Scott sued Emerson on the grounds that because he had lived in a free state and a fee territory he was entitled to his freedom. Scott lost the initial lawsuit in St. Louis, Missouri and won the second trail. The case

Dred Scott was a Missouri slave who sued for his freedom on territory that outlawed slavery. This case was known as The Dred Scott vs. Stanford. Dred Scott was taken from the slave state, Missouri, to Illinois, which was a free state. Slavery was outlawed in Illinois because of the Missouri Compromise. In 1846, When Scott’s master, Dr. John Emerson died, Scott sued Ms. Emerson for freedom for himself and his family. On March 6, 1857,The Supreme Court denied Scott his freedom. Authors, Brands, Breem, Williams, and Gross (2009) found that Chief Justice Rodger B. Taney argued, “ No African American-slave or free could be a citizen of the United States” (The Dredd Scott Case pg. 323). According to The Dred Scott Decision Ushistory.org (2008) The court ruled; the Missouri Compromise was considered unconstitutional, the congress had no power to prohibit slavery, and that because Scott was black, he would not be considered a citizen in the United state, therefore, he could not bring suit (The Dred Scott Decision Ushistory.org, 2008, para. 2). The ruling was unfair due to five out of the six judges were proslavery

This enslaved African American was as sassy as a slave can possibly get. This sassy slave’s name was Dred Scott. Scott happened to charge his master for his freedom. Not many people know who he is. If you’re one of them you can learn more about him than just his name and that he sued his owner.

Today I had the case of Dred Scott. Dred was a slave who had moved to free states with his owner, and when his owner died, he somehow managed to sue for his freedom, even though he has no right to do so because he doesn’t have American citizenship and he has no rights whatsoever. I’m told the foolishness went on for eleven years until it got to us. The ruling came very quickly to me. Of course, I immediately knew Dred was still a slave because he was property and the government has no right to take away property without due process of law. I also realized I could use this case to get rid of the Missouri Compromise. Since the government couldn’t take property and slaves were property, slavery is constitutional. Slavery is legal in every state

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.