The Dred Scott V. Sandford Case

The Dred Scott Decision was a famous Supreme Court case, deciding over the decision of slavery was legal in the newly discovered territory. It debated over the decision of whether it was legal for slaveholders to take their property into the newly formed territory or whether their property should be freed in this process. The ruling concluded in 1857 and affirmed that slaveholders should have the right to take their slaves to the west . The decision took three attempts to finally reach a conclusion about whether an African American living in recently developed land should be considered free or not. Below I will discuss the life of Dred Scott, the Scott v. Emerson Case, the Scott v. Sandford Case, the eradicating of slavery, and the path to black citizenship in the proceeding decades.

The Dred Scott vs. Sanford case was a huge decision in the history of our country. Dred Scott was a slave who was owned by the Sanford family. The Sanford family moved Scott to a Wisconsin territory, where slavery was prohibited under the Missouri Compromise, where he lived for 4 years working on and off to raise money for him and his family’s freedom. Later on, the Sanford family moved him back to St. Louis where Scott tried to buy him and his family freedom but was denied by the Sanford family. Scott sued the Sanford’s and made a case that he and his family lived in a free area for an extended period of time making him legally free. The state court declared him free but the wages that Scott had were withheld by the Sanford family who then appealed the decision to make Scott free to the Missouri Court. The Missouri Court overturned the decision to make Scott free and ruled in favor of the Sanford’s. Scott then sued the Sanford’s again for physical abuse and the court would not rule on it because they said Scott was regarded as a slave in Missouri territory.

Since the early settlers came to live in the United States, slaves were also shipped over from Africa. Since they had been brought over they had not been granted any rights nor were they treated any better after a couple hundred years. However, abolitionist groups became increasingly more popular in the 1840s and 1850s. Many slaves also began to run away and want their freedom, such as Dred Scott. The Dred Scott vs Sanford Supreme Court case decided that blacks were not entitled a U.S. citizenship and Congress cannot ban slavery in U.S. territories.

On March 6, 1857, Dred Scott, a Missouri slave, sued for his freedom and lost. Scott’s owner, an army doctor, took him to Illinois and the Wisconsin territory, and in both places slavery was against the law. Scott took his case all the way to the Supreme Court, but he fell short because slaves were not considered a person. This

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

Sandford, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in Federal Court. In the Supreme Court hearing, Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote, “For example, under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, Federal Courts may only hear cases brought by "citizens" of the United States. The Court ruled that because Scott was "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves," and thus "[not] a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution," Scott was not a citizen and had no right to file a lawsuit in federal court.” And as for Dred Scott, he argued that, “When a person enters a free State or territory, the free status overrides the previous condition of servitude. Since slavery was forbidden in the free States and territories by federal and State laws, Dred Scott became free when he entered Illinois and Wisconsin.” In that quote, Scott believed that he was free. The Court decided 7-2 in favor of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roger’s opinion was the most

Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri, owned by the Sandford family. After a couple of years, his owner, Dr. John Emerson, moved him into a Wisconsin Territory. After the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was drafted, slavery was no longer permitted in the area Scott was presiding in. After finding out that the Wisconsin Territory was a free area, Dred Scott went back to Missouri to sue for his freedom. He thought since he was living in a free territory, he was technically a free man. The Supreme Court ruled that Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sew in court. It was also ruled that the Congress did not have enough power to ban slaver in United States territories. Lastly, the court declared

Dred Scott was born a slave in the state of Virginia around the 1800's. Around 1833 he was purchased from his original owner, Peter Blow, by John Emerson, an officer in the United States Army. Dr. Emerson took Dred Scott to the free state of Illinois to live, and under it's constitution, he was eligible to be free. In around 1836, Dred Scott and his owner moved to Wisconsin territory, a territory that was free under the Missouri compromise. It was in Wisconsin that Dred Scott met and married Harriet Robinson. John Emerson was transferred in 1837 to Ft. Jessup, Louisiana, were he met and married Irene Sandford. Dred Scott and his wife followed Dr. Emerson and his wife from duty station to duty station;

In 1853, Dred Scott filed against his new owner John Stanford. This time he went before the Federal Court. Dred Scott claimed that the case belonged in federal court on the grounds of diversity jurisdiction – Article III of the U.S. Constitution. He argued that since he was a resident of Missouri and john Stanford was a resident of New York the issue of illegal enslavement was not within the jurisdiction of either state. The Court allowed the case but in the end ruled in favor of Stanford and Dred Scott appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Dred Scott was a slave that lived in St. Louis who sued in a Missouri state court to prove that he and his family were entitled to their freedom. Scott then took his case to the United States Supreme Court, which would ultimately lead to the Civil War. First of all, Scott was born into slavery in Virginia and then moved to Missouri with his slave master in 1830. Scott’s master died a few years after, so Scott was bought from a man that lived in Illinois, which at the time was declared a free state. Scott did not try to proclaim his freedom then, nor in Wisconsin which also was a free state. He did not try again for his freedom. It was not until Scott’s slave owner died, and Dr. Emerson’s wife did not want to sell Scott, that Scott finally made a push for his freedom and sued for it.

After thirty years, in 1857, the compromise was no longer enforced. The Supreme Court ruled that the congress had no power to prohibit slavery in territories, which led to the Dred Scott case. The case ended up in the Supreme courts by Dred Scott, a slave from free state, that returned to Missouri claiming that he has independence. The court spoke out that no black slave could claim as a U.S citizen. Years later his case was resolved and Dred has won his battles on his beliefs. The case led to Abraham Lincoln’s election and influenced

Along with protests, many people went to trials discussing what was legal, what was an injustice, and many other complaints regarding the issue of slavery. One particular case was the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. Dred Scott was a slave who lived in many places with his owner. Shortly before his owner, Peter Blow’s death, Scott and his owner, moved back to slave territory (OI). Blow sold Scott to Dr. John Emerson just before he died. After working with Emerson, they moved to Illinois, a free state, where they stayed for many years (OI). They then moved farther up North the Mississippi River, where Scott even got married (OI). The Scotts moved back and forth betwixt different states, both free and slaves; Scott’s wife had her child in Fort Snelling

Dred Scott was a Missouri slave sold to John Emerson in 1833, Scott was taken to Illinois, which was a free State, and on to the free Wisconsin Territory before returning to Missouri. When Emerson died in 1843, Scott sued emerson's widow for his freedom in the Missouri Supreme Court, arguing that his residence in the free territory of Illinois made him a free man. After defeat in local courts, Scott brought his case in a local federal court. Eleven years after Scott's first case, and then the case came before the U.S. Supreme Court. Now the question is: Was Dred Scott free or a slave?. I will analyze this case and go over the background information, historical information, and the arguments of this case. Once I have done this, then I will be able to

The case of Dred Scott v. Sanford depicts how a Black-American struggles for his right to become a free man. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was ignored in the case. On the other had the case of Korematsu v. United States shows a clear violation of amendments in the U.S constitution. The citizenship of Japanese Americans is questioned in the case. By analyzing the decision made in the cases of Dred Scott and Korematsu, were a clear violation of U.S constitution. This is significant because Dred Scott and Korematsu demonstrated the essence of racial biasness.

Dred Scott was a slave who desired freedom. Scott believed that he was considered free because he was once on free territory. He tried to petition and sue for still being “enslaved” when he was clearly on free land. The court decided that he had no right to petition because he couldn’t show that he was a U.S. citizen. He traveled north of the 36’30” line thus now being in a free state. The Missouri compromise was then labeled unconstitutional. The case eventually went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court’s decision was because Dred Scott was black it was considered that he was not a citizen and he could not sue. The decision encouraged abolitionists to speak out and for people to rage about anti slavery. A reason why people voted