The Case Of Dred Scott

According to the Declaration of Independence, signed in 1776, "[...] all men are created equal, [and] they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." One would then expect that every man, would be entitled to their freedom, and it was true, for all white men. African-Americans, however, faced a very different reality. They were still forced into slavery, they were deprived of those rights that all men were meant to have. While the north states opposed slavery, it was permitted in the south, and as the slavery issue raged on, one man would stand to fight for his freedom. His case, would go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court's decision would

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

　　　　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

As an army officer, Dr. Emerson moved frequently, taking Scott with him to each new army posting. In 1836, Emerson and Scott went to Fort Armstrong, in the free state of Illinois. In 1837, Emerson took Scott to Fort Snelling, in what is now the state of Minnesota and was then in the free territory of Wisconsin. There, Scott met and married Harriet Robinson, a slave owned by Lawrence Taliaferro. The marriage was formalized in a civil ceremony presided

The Dred Scott case took place in 1857. Dred Scott sued in federal court claiming that he was a free citizen. He had been taken to a slave-free territory by his owner, who was an army doctor (history.com). Since the state was free he also declared that he too was free, so Scott sued. He said that he was a citizen of Missouri and a free man. This case became a legal nightmare. This case was basically trying to figure out if slavery should be allowed in the south or not (history.com). Scott tried to gain his freedom, but it the trial did not turn out so well.

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.

The Dred Scott case was a large part of the Debates of 1858. This was a case about a slave named Dred Scott who lived in a free state (slavery was prohibited) but was not entitled to his freedom. The Dred Scott decision was that blacks could not sue in the U.S courts and that congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories of the west. Lincoln was opposed to the Dred Scott decision and would not submit to it because it “deprives the negro of the rights and privileges of citizenship.” (book). He openly criticized the decision and stated that blacks were entitled to the same freedom whites have. He did use this opportunity to endorse his colonization idea though. Douglas’s view on this case was a bit different. Douglas supported the Dred Scott decision but advocated popular sovereignty which contradicted one another. Douglas responded to accusations of this contradiction by reformulating his popular sovereignty idea. His reformulation became known as the Freeport Doctrine which stated that settlers would exclude slavery from a territory by not adopting local legislation. What he meant is that even if territorial governments supported the supreme court decision in the case of Dred Scott and did not prohibit slavery, municipalities could still do so by failing to support government. In the first debate on August 12th Douglas supported his supporting of the Dred Scott case with this statement: “I ask you, are you in favor of conferring upon the negro the rights and

“150 years ago that the court ruled in the Dred Scott case that slaves had no standing before the high court to demand their freedom, and that black people,quote “Had no rights when the white man was bound to respect’”( “150 Years Later,Dred Scott Remembered.Tell Me More,1 October.2007.U.S History in Context,) President Lincoln disagreed with Dred Scott’s views.Anti-slavery activists protested against pro-slavery activists and Dred Scott found that generally helpful for the cause that they were fighting for. This shows who Dred Scott is because it explains how he stood up for his human rights. Dred Scott also stated that the blacks deserved the same rights as the whites.Also, Dred Scott was a Missouri

On June 19th 1862 the US Congress prohibits slavery in the United States territories nullifying the Dred Scott

The Dred Scott Case had a huge impact on the United States as it is today. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments have called it the worst Supreme Court decision ever rendered and was later overturned. The Dred Scott Decision was a key case regarding the issue of slavery; the case started as a slave seeking his rightful freedom and mushroomed into a whole lot more. 65

In 1838, Dr. Emerson moved to Fort Jesup in Louisiana and married Irene Sanford, and remained there for a decade. In 1842, Dr. Emerson retired from the army and moved to St. Louis, Missouri where he remained for the rest of his life. By that time, the state of Missouri had been a free state for twenty-one years. Thus, Dred Scott had been living within the boundaries of freedom for some time but was illegally enslaved. Dr. Emerson passed away in 1843 and his wife inherited his entire estate which included ownership of the Scott family. Because she inherited her husband’s fortune the Scotts were now her property – in a state where slavery had been outlawed. Three years later, Dred Scott attempted to buy the freedom congress granted those in the

Dred Scott was of African descent and born in America. He was a slave in 1834. He belonged to Dr. Emerson, a surgeon for the United States army. Scott and Dr. Emerson were originally located in Missouri, a slave state. But, in the year 1834, Dr. Emersion took Scott to the Rock Island Military Post in Illinois, a free state, where he worked for him as a slave. This continued until 1836, when Dr. Emerson moved with Scott to Fort Snelling located in Upper Louisiana, a territory at the time (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_dred.html). Later, this territory would enter the Union as a free state because of the Missouri Compromise (The Dred Scott Decision 2013). While this was happening, Harriet, the eventual wife of Dred

Dred Scott impacted the world tremendously during his early years. Dred Scott was born sometime around the turn of the century, 1795, in Southampton County, Virginia. A legend has is that his name was not Dred but was Sam, but when his brother died, he adopted his name instead. His parents were also slaves, but it was unknown whether the Blow family owned them at his birth or after. Peter Blow and his family relocated to Huntsville, Alabama, and then they relocated to St. Louis Missouri(“SHS”) After Peter Blow died, in the 1830’s, Scott had been sold to the U.S. Army doctor, John Emerson. In 1836, He fell in love with a slave of a different army doctor, 19 year old Harriet Robinson, and her ownership had been transferred over to Dr.Emerson when they were married. In the next couple years, Dr.Emerson traveled to Illinois and to the Wisconsin Territories, which both had prohibited slavery in that time period. When

A man once stood in front of a crowd of thousands of people both black and white. He delivered a speech that fought for the possibility of an America where both black and white citizens were truly equal; this man was“Martin Luther King Jr”(Martin Luther King Jr.). One might fight back and argue that the laws during this time did make the African Americans equal but this was not true, as one of the laws stated the two as being Equal but separate. This law was one of the Jim crow laws, in which African americans were in theory separate and equal, but in reality were given second hand treatment after the prioritized white citizens (Richard). The Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional and took away many African Americans chances at being considered

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.