Dred Scott Case Analysis

This topic includes the election of President Abraham Lincoln in 1861, slavery, Louisiana Purchase , the Dred Scott decision, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The United States decided to buy hundreds of thousands of miles of land west of the Mississippi River for 15 million dollars. This act was known as the Louisiana Purchase. The Dred Scott Decision was made when the Supreme Court declared African Americans are not American citizens. The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed Kansas and Nebraska the right to decide if the state was anti-slavery or not.

When the Western territory was created the Missouri Compromise was ignored and popular sovereignty was introduced to Kansas and Nebraska. Popular sovereignty was a completely different approach that allowed the people to choose if slavery would be allowed within the state. The Missouri Compromise of 1820, had kept the Union in stable condition for thirty-four years and the Kansas-Nebraska act simply overturned it in a matter of days.

In May of 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska act bill was passed by the U.S Congress. The bill was introduced by Senator Stephen A. Douglas (Discovering our Past; The History of the United States Early Years p.431 and 432). The bill gives the people of Kansas and Nebraska territory popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty is letting the people of the Kansas and Nebraska territory choose whether to allow slavery or not. The textbook(Discovering our Past; The History of the United States Early Years p. 432) states that “Douglas hoped to make his plans acceptable to both the North and South. He propose repealing the Missouri Compromise and letting the voters in each territory vote on whether or not to allow slavery” (notes) Kansas with slavery would

4.     The Kansas Nebraska Act- The Kansas Nebraska Act was an act that mandated popular sovereignty.  It allowed people in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide for themselves whether or not to allow slavery within their borders. The Acts job was to go against the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which prohibited slavery up north.  This act made people from the north angry because they thought slavery was going to end and the south was happy about this act.

Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott moved North with his master and sues claiming that because he was in free territory, he was no longer a slave. The case goes to the Supreme Court and they rule in favor of Dred Scott’s master and the court says that not only is Dred Scott not free, but he cannot even bring a case to court. Many see this as the Federal Government backing the institution of slavery. The Dred Scott decision was a major win for the South and Pro-slavery citizens. This is an example of slaves having no rights. Eventually in 1861, war broke out between the Union(North) and the confederacy(South) when the confederacy attacked Fort Sumter. Each side had different ideas. The Union wanted to make all men free and the Confederacy wanted

The case of Dred Scott, as stated earlier, is considered one of the worst decisions ever made by the United States supreme court, and is still referenced much today. A lot of civil rights cases that take place, reference the case of Dred Scott because it is a sway vote to try and get the jury to be on the right side of justice, it is referenced because it is such a controversial topic and since it was declared a mistake, it is used to sway the opinion of the jury, so as they do not repeat the mistakes of our

The Dred Scott Case occurred when a slaves master passed away. Dred Scott (the slave) was owned by a doctor who lived in a free state so, he acted like a free man. When the doctor died Dred Scott was in his will for his wife, his wife ended up moving to a slave state but Dred Scott got a lawyer top try to sue her for treating him like a slave. He was the first salve ever to try to sue his master. The judge, Roger Taney, basically said that a black man had no right while white can do as they please. This case caused an uproar in the North and drove the wedge between the North and the South even deeper than ever before. This case proved to the North that the government was not opposed to

As the early nineteenth century unfolded hostility to slavery surfaced on the national scene. The United States began to split because of views of the people became concreate causing the bitter disputes between the North and South to be more drastic due to economic issues of slavery and morals. The Constitution contributed in the separation that was occurring. For example the Compromise of 1850, was drafted by Henry Clay in an attempt to gloss over the confrontation between the slave states of the South and the free states of the North regarding the territory with slavery. Another example of a Supreme Court decision that is known as the Dred Scott Decision of 1857 declared that African Americans had no rights of citizenship hence slaves who escaped to free states were not free but still the property of their owners and would need to be returned. The decision of the United States to determine that once a person was a slave they could never become a citizen. This case instilled fear to anti-slavery groups that slavery would spread and it infuriated anti-slavery leaders causing the new Republican Party.

Court ruled that Scott was not a citizen and thus had no right to sue. Their Finding was that slaves were

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.

On March 6, 1857 the controversial ruling of the Dred Scott vs. Stanford case was given causing dissention in the nation. The Supreme Court ruled over whether Dred Scott was a free slave and if slavery will expand to the new territories. The Court permitted slavery in the New Territories. It declared Scott was property, and therefore he was not free based on the Fifth Amendment, which says the right to property cannot be infringed upon. This meant he was not a free man even though he had returned from a free state. The Court decided that slaves were not American citizens. Meaning Scott or any other slave did not have the right to sue in federal court. This caused major issues between four major political groups: the Fire Eaters, the

Friction between the North and South had been steadily increasing since the Missouri compromise in 1820, which effectively divided the North and South into free and slave states, respectively. While this worked to delay further conflict, it merely postponed the conflict. The conflict was placed in the limelight yet again with Nat Turners slave rebellion in 1831, The failed WIlmot Proviso in 1846, and then later Henry Clay’s Compromise of 1850, which solely postponed violent confrontation yet again. The latest compromise successfully delayed confrontation for four more years, until “Bleeding Kansas”, which was, in fact, a direct result of the compromise of 1850. Three years after Bleeding Kansas, there was the horrible SCOTUS decision on the case of Dred Scott vs. Sanford, in which the supreme court essentially stated slaves were

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

Dred Scott was an African American man born into slavery around 1800. He wanted what all enslaved people wanted. He wanted his freedom. Dred Scott vs. Stanford was a landmark Supreme court case that was a major player in the secession of the southern states. The bravery, courage and determination of Dred Scott was one of the the first steps in a long road to freedom.

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.