Dred Scott V. Sandford Case Analysis

In 1834, a surgeon Dr. John Emerson joined the US Army and was accompanied by his slave Dred Scott at a number of posts located in Illinois, the Wisconsin Territory, and Missouri. When Emerson died in 1846, Dred Scott sued for his freedom claiming that because since he had lived in territories where slavery was illegal, he was legally free. Soon the case finally went to the supreme court after being overruled by the Missouri Supreme Court. The court ruled that Dred Scott was still a slave and Roger.B.Taney, the chief of Justice at the time, declared that under the US Constitution terms on possession of property, Dred Scott wasn’t free because since slaves were “property” and a slave being freed after going to a free state would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment.The outcome of the Dred Scott case affected the United States stance on slavery. The supreme court's

Dred Scott Decision ruling was used in subsequent cases in the court. The decision on all blacks slaves or free

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.

Body paragraph 2-The Dred ScottV. Sandford case is very important. The case was important because a slave was living in a free slave state but his master moved him back into a slave state. Once he was in the slave free state he technically wasn't a slave but his previous master still took him so he tried suing. Dred Scott ended up losing but we learned our lesson.

INTRODUCTION United States Supreme Court case Scott v. Sanford (1857), commonly known as the Dred Scott Case, is probably the most famous case of the nineteenth century (with the exception possibly of Marbury v. Madison). It is one of only four cases in U. S. history that has ever been overturned by a Constitutional amendment (overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments). It is also, along with Marbury, one of only two cases prior to the Civil War that declared a federal law unconstitutional. This case may have also been one of the most, if not the most, controversial case in American history, due simply to the fact that it dealt an explosive opinion on an issue already prepared to erupt - slavery. Thus, many scholars assert that the

Justices in Plessy v. Ferguson allowed for segregation to become a law in the United States. Which caused for discrimination against all African Americans and unequal treatment. Also, the decision in Dread Scott v. Sandford continued the issue surrounding slavery, and it clarified how the government felt about this topic.

The lawsuit officially known as Scott v. Sandford was taken to court in 1857. The complainant, Dred Scott, was born a slave in Virginia and was later moved to Missouri. There, he was sold to a new owner, Dr. Emerson (Dred Scott v. Sandford). Four years later, Dr. Emerson together with Scott moved to a free state, Illinois (Roessler 3). After another two years they moved to Upper Louisiana that formed part of a free state as well.

Sandford). Chief Justice Taney, who happened to be a former slave owner, gave the majority opinion, 7-2, ruling against Dred Scott. He also said as a person of African descent, Dred Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in federal court. He added that Scott had never been free, since slaves were considered personal property (Dred Scott v. Sanford 63).

Dred Scott was a slave owned by an army surgeon in Missouri. “In 1836, Scott had been taken by his owner to Fort Snelling, in what is now Minnesota, then a territory in which slavery was explicitly forbidden according to the Missouri Compromise”(Oates 50). In 1846, he brought a suit in the state court on the grounds that residence in a free territory liberated him from slavery. The Supreme Court of Missouri, however, ruled that since he was brought back into a state where slavery was legal, the status of slavery was reattached to him and he had no standing before the court.

Rachel vs. Walker Case which states that if a slave returns to Missouri and is not owned as Dred Scott did there

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.

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,

However, those that favor judicial restraint on the other hand, and thus favor the status quo and the strict construction of the Constitution are conservatives and Republicans. Two landmark Supreme Court decisions that strictly interpreted the Constitution for its literal meaning were Dred Scott v. Sanford and Plessy v. Ferguson. In the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans did not have the right to sue for their freedom, since they were seen strictly by the law as property and not even citizens of the United States. As well, in Plessy v. Ferguson the Court ruled that segregation of public schools was not unconstitutional, even though African Americans were still seen as equal citizens due to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution ("separate but equal"). However, this particular case was then overturned by Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas in 1954. The Brown decision, unlike that of Plessy v. Fergusion and Dred Scott v. Sanford expressed judicial activism and ruled racial segregation unconstitutional.

The landmark Supreme Court cases of Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas have had a tremendous effect on the struggle for equal rights in America. These marker cases have set the precedent for cases dealing with the issue of civil equality for the last 150 years.

The Dred Scott v. Stanford or better known as the Dred Scott Supreme Court Case was one of the most controversial events leading up to the Civil War. In This case, Dred Scott, a slave who had previously lived with his owner, John Emerson, in free states and territories, had now retuned to a slave state. Dredd Scott testified that because he spent time in these locations he was entitled to emancipation. Dred Scott was essentially suing for his freedom. He won his case in lower court, but unfortunately a strong supporter of slavery, and Chief Justice of the supreme court case, Roger B. Taney, disagreed with Scott. On March 6,