James Buchanan Vs. Dred Scott Case

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

In the Supreme Court case, “The Dred Scott Decision of 1857”, Dred Scott, a Missouri slave, brought to Illinois by his owner, fought for him and his families freedom in the northern states where slavery was forbidden. While in Illinois Scott fought for his independance on the terms that him and his family now resided in a free state which declared him a free man. On March 6,1857, in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court denied Scott’s freedom. The Supreme Court stated that any African American was denied the right to have American citizenship. Due to the fact that Scott wasn’t considered an American citizen he did not have the right to sue in federal court. After the case had been finalized many African Americans and abolitionists were enraged

There were a number of things that went into effect after the ruling of Dred Scott. The new president had gone into office but not yet been inaugurated. There had always been discussions about the political climate during the decision, and if in fact President Buchanan swayed the decision. President Buchanan did write a letter to one of the chief justice’s where he expressed a desire both for the case to be decided before March 1857, and for a verdict that would place the debate on slavery beyond politics and thereby calm popular agitation on the subject, Buchanan had gone further and persuaded another Associate Justice – who was from the North – to vote with the Southern majority (Richards). The decision accounted for most of the Republican gain; victories by “slave power” had produced a backlash that strengthened its deadliest enemies of the north (McPherson 188).

In a Court in St. Louis, Dred Scott and his wife, Harriet, were slaves. They tried to sue to get their freedom on the ground that they lived on. Instead, the ignorance of the Court did not guarantee their freedom because according to the Constitution, they are their master's property. At the same time, the Court also ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. According to the Court's opinion, no slave had the right to be a citizen of the United States and could not expect or have any protection from the Federal Government or any of the courts and the opinion also stated that the Congress does not have any right to ban slavery. It was then considered by the legal scholars to be the worst ever provided by the Supreme Court ever.

In 1916 there was a Land Ordinance in Louisville, KY, which stated that African Americans where prohibited from living on a block where the majority of residents were white. It also prohibited whites from living on a block where the majority of residents were black. In order to challenge this law, Warley, a black man, agreed to purchase Buchanan 's house. Buchanan was white. Just by this simple action, Warley and Buchanan 's lives would change, and would indeed challenge not only the law, but the court as well.

Congress and the American people debated over slavery and its expansion. Although Congress passed laws in order to try to eliminate the issue, these compromises only temporarily decreased the tension. In 1857, the Supreme Court made an influential ruling regarding expansion in the case of Dred Scott v Sandford. The Dred Scott Decision shook the American public and forced the dispute over slavery and its expansion . Congress could not agree because the North and the South were no longer willing to compromise. Despite its intent to resolve the issue of slavery in America, the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott ruling actually further divided political parties and increased tension between the North and the South.

He wanted someone from New England, and he also wanted someone from the south, to let the southerners know about new attacks on slavery. In February of 1857 the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court were about to make a big decision involving slavery. Dred Scott and his wife brought their owner to court seeking their freedom. They took their owner to a state that had banned slavery, to be released from their owner. Scott and his wife ended up being the first couple to be sued for their freedom in a Missouri court. When President Buchanan heard about the Dred Scott case he was very mad and wrote to one of the southern justices demanding that slavery be terminated but the congress still didn't agree with him (Burgan

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

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

John F.A Sandford. This case was one of the most controversial cases leading up to the Civil War. This decision was issued in March 1857 by the United States Supreme Court. The decision included a slave man named Dred Scott. Dred Scott was a slave who lived in a free-state along with his owner. In front of the Supreme Court, he argued that since he spent time in a free state, he had the right to have freedom. The court then overruled his argument and decided that no slave could claim a U.S citizenship. Since they decided that no slaves could claim a U.S citizenship, African Americans had no ability to argue for their freedom due to the Supreme Court refusing to give permission. This decision raised the tensions between the North and South, making the abolitionists of slavery furious. Not only did the Dred Scott decision raise the tensions between both sides, but the states rights did

　　　　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

“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

In the late 1800’s, slavery was a very controversial topic in the United States. There was no peace about it. Slavery caused families to split, and brothers to kill one another. With feelings so strong on this topic, it was extremely difficult to please both sides – the North and the South. This was especially difficult when running for president. Many strategies were tested, but only a few prevailed. Some candidates thought it would be best to let the people decide whether or not their state was pro or anti-slavery. One candidate did not take much of a stand for either side. Presidents Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan all made it to the White House, but did not leave much of a legacy do to their stances on slavery.

When Dred Scott v. Sandford was decided in 1857, it made an enormous impact on the United States. It riled up both pro- and anti-slavery Americans. It angered many Americans in an extreme example of judicial activism. Some say it made the Civil War inevitable. By the time the dust had settled and the 13th and 14th Amendments reversed the Court’s decision, Dred Scott could be considered one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. And yet, although the case was egregiously wrong, it still can be considered a “great case”.

     One of the final cause of the Civil was involved a slave named Dred Scott. Dred Scott was an enslaved person owned by John Emerson. Emerson took Dred Scott from Missouri to Illinois, a free state. They then moved back to Missouri, which was a slave state under the Missouri Compromise. In 1857 Dred Scott sued the state of Missouri on the claim that by living in a free state, he was free and had earned his freedom. Scott won that case, but the ruling was later overturn by the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the compromises including the Missouri Compromise were unconstitutional and that African Americans were not United State citizens and could not be a citizen. Slaves were considered property and had no rights.