The Dred Scott Case Analysis

“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

issue of slavery and the division it caused between the North and the South was a

　　　　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

Slavery was a topic of much debate especially for the D.C. area. The Compromise of 1850 made it so that D.C. would

In 1854, Scott v. Sanford took place. Scott, a slave to the Emerson family, traveled to Minnesota with John Emerson. While there, his owner died and the court declared him free. However, at the Circuit of Appeals, it was ruled Scott was still property of the Emersons'. This decision stood, which declared that slaves are property. This was one infuriating cause of the Civil War.

As a result of the Compromise of 1850, California was admitted as a free state, the territory disputed between Texas and New Mexico was surrendered to New Mexico, the slave trade was abolished in the District of Columbia, the Mexican Cession was open to popular sovereignty, and a stronger Fugitive Slave Law was enacted. In a speech to the Senate on March 7, 1850, Senator Daniel Webster stated his opinion that the North is wrong for not obeying the Fugitive Slave Law and that succession is amiss [Document D].The tone of Webster’s speech is objective as he attempts to see both sides- the North and the South. Webster is unbiased because as a Northern man, he agrees with the South. The peace was only temporary. The Fugitive Slave Law upset Northerners and the Underground Railroad became more active, peaking between 1850 and 1860. Massachusetts went so far as to making it a penal offense for a state official to enforce the act. The act also brought the issue of slavery into the limelight before the entire nation. In fact, by 1858, there was no avoiding the subject of slavery. During the Lincoln-Douglass Debates in a speech at Alton, Illinois on October 15, 1858, Abraham Lincoln stated that slavery was no longer just a political issue [Document G]. Slavery was splitting the nation and during the Second Great Awakening, even churches split over the issue. Lincoln’s speech is

after Dred Scott case was heard by the nations highest tribunal affecting how all blacks were to be treated in

Dred Scott was an African American born into slavery who attempted to buy freedom for himself, but failed. Scott then sued for freedom and the case was taken to the Missouri courts however, he eventually lost at the Supreme Court level. This case was one of the most controversial topics in history, with several arguments regarding each standpoint. The Dred Scott case was a strong indication of the upcoming Emancipation Proclamation and Civil War. While there are many different controversies concerning the Dred Scott Case, he was an American citizen and should have earned the same rights as others.

The landmark Supreme Court cases of Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas have had a tremendous effect on the struggle for equal rights in America. These marker cases have set the precedent for cases dealing with the issue of civil equality for the last 150 years.

The events which caused the "cauldron of controversy" over slavery to continue to boil was morality rose and a peaceful solution to slavery disappeared and a more violent emerged. The Kansas territory split slavery and antislavery.

From 1852 to 1857, the outcome of the Dred Scott v. Sanford case was slowly decided. Many Americans hoped

Slavery was a national question of morality and could not just be left up to each individual territory to figure out for themselves. All because of the Kansas-Nebraska act that had had one line with a slavery loophole,

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case professes that the Supreme Court did not just cast an immoral decision, but also that they had overstepped their boundaries. The Dred Scott case was simply about Dred Scott suing for his freedom, and whether or not he qualified as free once moving back to a slave state. The Supreme Court rather asserted the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, and made the law pro-slavery. The decision of the Supreme Court to nullify the Missouri Compromise and declare that African Americans could not legally become citizens was unsettling at the time because it disagreed with the popular

In 1857, Dred Scott a slave owned by John Emerson sued Emerson’s estate and brought the case to Chief Justice Roger Taney of the supreme court. This case all started because back in early 1850s, when Emerson wanted to move from Missouri a slave state to Illinois a free state. Now years later, when Emerson want to move back, Scott refuses and stated that he is a free man now base on Illiois law.In Chief Justice Roger Taney finial verdict he states many reasons why a slave can never become a citizen with the same rights as a white man. This is because since the Founding Father times, slaves African ancestry

Dred Scott V. Sandford was a lawsuit filed in 1846 by Dred Scott, an African- American slave because he wanted to gain freedom not only for himself but for his family. This case became a landmark legal case in the United States history. Dred Scott was basically arguing that because his owner had taken him into a free state where African Americans were free.