The Dred Scott Case: All Men Are Created Equal

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

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".

We are so accustomed to waking up every day without a care in the world. We can basically go wherever we like, eat wherever we like, sit wherever we like, and not have to worry about another person controlling our every move (unless it’s our parents of course)! Imagine a time, not too long ago, when just because of the color of your skin, you had an “owner” and were treated as a piece of property, instead of another human being. A time where you couldn’t go into certain places, sit in certain areas, let alone use the restroom, unless it was in a designated place for your particular skin color. You weren’t labeled as people, but as black or white. Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia and had to face these hardships his whole entire life. When he finally walked on to free soil where slavery was prohibited, he stayed and chose to still be with his owner. Once his owner died, he and his wife decided to sue for their freedom. Little did they know, that the rules only applied to certain people when they wanted them to.

While it might at first seem superfluous, one of the most important parts of the Fourteenth Amendment was that it provided a definition of who was a citizen of the United States. However, in the infamous Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Taney had held that, “A free negro of the African race… is not a ‘citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States,” and thus, only whites were entitled to constitutional rights. The

Dred Scott was a man that grew up in the tough times of slavery. Scott was born around the year 1800 and died in 1858. As a young man and all the way up to his death he tried several times to gain freedom for his family and himself through the Missouri court system, but failed. Scott then took his case to a court in Missouri, where he won only to have the final decision revoked by the Supreme Court (“Dred Scott Biography”). The notorious outcome of Dred Scott v. Sandford case embarked the start of the Civil War in the United States against the northern states and the southern states.

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.

many acts and amendments resulted from one mans wish to be free. Dred Scott was a slave to the Emerson

The reason why Dred Scott decided to pursue his freedom is unknown, but there are a couple theories. For example, it is believed that “most likely, Scott decided to bring his case to court after years of [talks] with other slaves that had done the same.” (Herda, 30) This shows

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.

Blacks were treated as a different species, and also were considered inferior to whites. The “Dred Scott Case” is an example of how bad they slaves wanted to get away from their masters. His master to a free territory took Dred Scott, a slave, from Missouri, a slave state. Scott sued stating, since he was in a free territory he was not obligated to still work as his master’s slave. He was a free man. However, Chief Justice, Roger B. Taney had claimed that since Scott was a slave, his

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 a slave who went from Missouri, which was a slave state, to Illinois and Wisconsin then back to Missouri with his owner. He tempted to the Supreme court for his freedom on the grounds that being in a free state had made him a free man.

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.