The Dred Scott Decision Case

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 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.

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

This was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, in 1846 a slave named Dred Scott and his wife, Harriet, sued for their freedom in a St. Louis city court. They had lived with their owner, an army surgeon, at Fort Snelling, then in the free Territory of Wisconsin. The Scotts' freedom could be established on the grounds that they had been held in relationship for long time in a free territory and were then returned to a slave state. Courts had ruled this way in the past. However, what appeared to be a straightforward lawsuit between two private teams became an 11-year legal struggle that reach the highest point of an activity in one of the most well known decisions ever issued by the United States Supreme

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 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

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.

The Dred Scott Decision of 1857 ruled that African-Americans, even ones who were not enslaved, were not protected under The Constitution and could never be citizens. This brings up questions that will be answered in this paper. Should slaves be American citizens? Is it morally correct for one to own another human? Does the Dred Scott decision contradict The Declaration of Independence which states that every man is created equal?

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.

　　　　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

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 forced to travel around with his owner, a United States army surgeon, Dr. John Emerson. Dr. Emerson was assigned to Fort Armstrong located in Illinois. As of 1818, when Illinois became a state, its state constitution declared it a free state (Gunderson 16). Although illegal, Scott was still forced to work as a slave for his master. Dr. Emerson soon requested a transfer from Fort Armstrong which was quickly answered; his new post was at Fort Snelling. Fort Snelling was located in a newly created Wisconsin Territory near present-day St. Paul, Minnesota where slavery had been banned since 1820 (Gunderson 16). As Dr. Emerson continued to be dissatisfied with many of the forts he traveled without his slaves for a while and met his wife

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

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

Soon after, the Dred Scott case was introduced into society. The Dred Scott case was a chance to settle once and for all the question of slavery in the territories. Dred Scott was a slave who, after his owner died, sued for his freedom in the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery had been outlawed by the Missouri Compromise. According to the textbook Liberty, Equality, Power: A History of the American People by John M. Murrin, Paul E. Johnson, James M. Mcpherson, Alicea Fahs, Gary Gerstle, Emily S. Rosenberg, and Norman L. Rosenberg, “The Southern Supreme Court justices decided to declare that the Missouri Compromise ban on slavery in the territories was unconstitutional...Chief Justice Taney issued that the Court’s ruling stating that congress lacked the power to keep slavery out of a territory, because slaves were property and the Constitution protects the right of property...Taney also wrote that the circuit court shouldn 't have accepted the Scott case because black men were not citizens of the US and had no standing in its courts.” (John et al., 2012). The Supreme Court seemed bias when they went against the government in the sense that they proved a law unconstitutional simply because a black man questioned if it applied to him. The Supreme Court generally said that Negroes were not citizens, even if they were free, and had no rights. This denied the rights of a man, but after all,