The Reasons And Causes Of The American Civil War

Dred Scott was an African American man that went to trial to sue for his freedom in 1847. He was living in Missouri, which was a slave state. He was then taken to Illinois and Minnesota, they were both free states. Dred Scott was sold to Sandford in a free state and tried to sue for his freedom. The United States Supreme court said that “African ancestry whether you were free or not, will never become citizens of the United States and cannot sue in a federal court.” ( Taney, 1857) Sandford had him as a slave for a long period of time when Dred Scott finally chose to sue. The Declaration of Independence and the The Constitution had never included or mentioned slaves being treated equally.

“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...)

　　　　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

Scott was an African American slave who sued unsuccessfully for his freedom, because he believed that he should be free based on the territory he was living in. Congress examined this case and came to the conclusion that since Scott was not a citizen of the United States, he did not have the authority to sue the federal court. This case caused great tension within the nation because congress’ decision not only made it seem like they were accepting slavery but it contradicted original compromises such as the Missouri Compromise. The ruling of the Missouri compromise being unconstitutional was an extreme upset to the northerners, because this made way for a greater opportunity of slavery within the nation. The growing tensions between the north and south were increasing with every decision made involving the issue of slavery.

The Dred Scott Decision was a major court ruling having to do with slavery in the 1850s. Dred Scott was a slave who lived in Missouri. His owner, Army Dr. John Emerson, took him to the Illinois and Wisconsin Territory on tours of duty. His owner died after they returned to Missouri. Dred Scott sued for his freedom because he said he became a free man living in the free territory. The Dred Scott Decision was a major court case that stated a slave, or any black man, could be considered property anywhere, even in free states. This decision showed the United States that the Supreme Court favored slavery.

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.

The case also sparked the northern states as with glee in the south. The american public reacted very strongly and the anti slavery group thought the would spread terribly. Also Abraham Lincoln said that slaves were property and had no rights. The courts said that Scott was not free based on living in either Illinois or Wisconsin because he was not considered a person under the U.S. Constitution In the opinion of the justices, black people were not even considered citizens when the Constitution was written in 1787. Dred Scott was the property of his owner, and property could not be taken from a person. With the support of friends, the Scott’s survived eleven years of disappointing litigation. After those long eleven years, Mrs. Emerson and her brother gave

On March 6, 1857, two days after the inauguration of Buchanan, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott, born a slave in Virginia in about 1800, was taken to St. Louis in 1830 and sold, relocated to Illinois, then to the Wisconsin Territory, and finally back to St. Louis in 1842. While in the Wisconsin Territory, Scott eventually married and had two daughters. After the death of his owner, in 1843, Scott aggressively tried to buy his freedom. In 1846, Harriet Scott influenced her husband to file suit in the Missouri courts, claiming residence in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory made him a free African American. A jury decided in his favor, but state Supreme Court ruled against him. When the case rose on appeal to the Supreme Court, the nation apprehensively awaited the decision on whether freedom once granted could be lost by

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

Dred Scott was a slave who had lived with his master in Missouri. He lived in Illinois, a free state, and the Wisconsin Territory for five years. He went to court for his freedom on the basis of his long residence on free soil. Two state courts made two opposing decisions, so Scott went to the Supreme Court in 1857. The Supreme Court ruled that since a slave was private property, he could be taken into any territory and legally held there. The judge appointed to Scott's case, Justice Roger Brooke Taney, decided that Scott couldn't bring a case to court because he wasn't a US citizen, the law declared slaves as property and owners could move their property anywhere, the Missouri Compromise was unlawful, and Congress didn't have enough power to decide where slavery could be permitted. This decision meant that all territories were able to have slavery and northern lawmakers wouldn't be able to keep it out of the territories.

Dred Scott went to trial to sue for his freedom in 1846, but not until 10 years later his case was brought. Scott had travelled with his owner to Wisconsin, where slavery was banned by the Missouri Compromise and when he returned to Missouri, he decided that he wanted to go to court and win his freedom. Him and his wife, Harriet Scott knew that there was a doctrine in states court called “once free, always free”. “Once free, always free” means that if you were an enslaved person held in a free territory, then you should be free even in a slave state. Scott argued that his stay in Wisconsin had made him a free man, connecting to the “once free, always free”. On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Taney delivered the Dred Scott Decision. Many of his fellow justices thought that he would free Dred Scott, because he had gone on to free his own slaves, but he didn’t. Taney argued that slaves were property and the 5th Amendment says that property can not be taken from people without due process of law, the fact that Scott was black, therefore not a citizen and could never become one, meant that he could not sue. The Dred Scott decision delighted slaveholders because the court said no to letting Dred Scott be free. The court rejected Scott’s argument that his stay in Wisconsin has made him a free man, because the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. “The ruling had 3 main parts,” said Matthew Pinsker, “First, blacks had no rights. Second, slave states no longer had to honor the “once free, always free, and third, congress never should have prohibited slavery in Wisconsin territories or in any territories. This created a huge firestorm of controversy and ultimately is one of the leading causes of the civil war,”. Him and his wife was freed because Dred Scott’s original owner had 2 sons that later became anti-slavery. The 2 sons helped fund for Scott’s legal cases for many years,

     Dred Scott was held as a slave to Missouri resident Dr. John Emerson. In1834 Scott traveled with Dr. Emerson to the state of Illinois, and in 1836 to areas of present day Minnesota only to finally return back to Missouri in 1838. Slavery was forbidden in the state of Illinois and under the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was also forbidden in the traveled areas of Minnesota. Upon the death of his owner, Scott sued for his freedom on the grounds that since slavery was outlawed in the free territories he had temporarily resided in, he had become a “free” man there. While an initial ruling by a lower state court declared him free, this ruling was later overturned by the Missouri Supreme

Slavery was adopted in the U.S. to help the South maintain their plantations. Soon though it became an institution that defined the Southerners (Herda 21). Slavery became more than just a answer for cheap labor to them. Slavery became a social class system that defined the South. It separated the whites from low class to high class, and it inhumanely made the slaves just seems as property or inhuman. In Missouri, however where Dred filed the claim, they had a lenient attitude towards slavery if the said slave was brought to free territory like Scott, but since the times were changing and the wedge was growing between North and South Dred Scott was more likely to be treated

Under the Missouri compromise of 1820 which banned slavery, the act of congress established a boundary between free and slave states. Dred Scott was living in Illinois a free state ,which made him a free man. As a result , seeing that Dred Scott was of African American descent he was not recognized as a free man.