The Dred Scott Case And The Fugitive Slave Act

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

The Act caused even more controversy. Dred Scott was a slave in a slave state, but then moved to a free state, so he thought that he was now a free person. The court decided he was not a free person because he was still property. In addition, the Missouri and Main became a free state. This was named the Missouri Compromise. It stated that no more states north of the new boundary could become a slave state, which angered some who needed slaves to run their farms. (Wise...)

　　　　The Dred Scott decision was significant because it was the first time since Marbury v. Madison that the Supreme Court said an act of congress was unconstitutional. It said the congress had no power to ban slavery in the federal territories; therefore, the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. By doing this, the Court also said people in the territories had no right to decide whether their state should be a free or a slave state. This was known as popular sovereignty. The decision also hurt the new Republican Party which was trying to stop the spread of slavery. Further, this decision continued the conflict over slavery between the north and south and

Though initially considered to be a ‘compromise’ and intended to lessen the tensions between the North and South, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 ultimately served as a vehicle to fight against slavery. Common citizens rebelled against their supposed responsibilities to return slaves to their masters, and resisted the punishments handed down. By polarizing the nation in such a way,

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.

Born in 1800, Dred Scott was sold to army surgeon, John Emerson. Eliza, John’s wife, gives the custody of Dred and Harriet Scott to his brother, John Sanford. Dred Scott wanted to demand what all enslaved people wanted: his freedom. Emerson’s profession was surgery and

In the 1780s, there was a question of whether slavery would be tolerable in new territories to threaten the Union. Throughout the decades, many compromises were made to avoid disunion. But the Constitution was not clear on this subject which created quite the discussion nationwide when raised in 1857 before the Supreme Court in the form of the Dred Scott case. The Dred Scott decision was an eye-opener to Northerners that believed slavery was acceptable as long as it stayed in the South. If the decision took away any power Congress once had to regulate slavery in new territories, slavery could quickly expand into much of the western United States. Realizing that once slavery expanded into those territories, it could quickly spread into the once-free states. Many Northerners remained silent on the issue, this very possibility was too scary to ignore. Northerners who had not previously been against the South and against slavery began to realize that if they did not stop slavery now, they might never again have the chance. The growing fear in the North helped further contributed to an ongoing dispute between the two sides which eventually lead to the Civil War. A couple years after Chief Justice Taney read Scott v. Sandford decision, half of the Union had seceded and the nation was engaged in civil war. However, because of the passions it created on both sides, Taney 's decision certainly quickly accelerated the start of conflict. Even in 1865, as the long and bloody

Many times during our class discussions and lectures we tried to examine the stages leading up to the succession and Civil War in America. During the critical time period of the middle 19th century, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision of the Supreme Court was one of those major treads on the pathway to secession. The man Dred Scott was taken to Missouri with Peter Blow as a slave from Virginia and sold. His new master from Missouri then moved to the free state of Illinois for a while, but later moved back to Missouri. Following his master 's passing, Scott asserted that since he had resided in a free state, he was inevitably a free citizen.

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.

As stated above, the rapid spread of abolitionists in the northern states and the pro-slavery activism in the southern states, the United States of America was soon torn apart. In the year of 1820, an act known as the Missouri Compromise was passed, and slavery was banned from all newly created western territories. This passing caused a lot of tension in the southern states because they believed it was going to eventually diminish their industrial success. A few decades later in 1857, the United States Supreme Court made a new legal principle known as the Dred Scott Decision, which stated that African slaves (in the slave

Sanford was another hot political issue. Dred Scott and his wife were taken to a free state by their master, and the ruling on this case stated that Scott was still legally bound to his master and must remain a slave. This decision was based on three main factors. The first factor was that Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in Federal court. The second factor was that it was unconstitutional for Congress to outlaw slavery in a territory. The last factor stated that although Scott and his family were heading in and out of Free states, it did not affect their standing as slaves.

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

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.

     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.