Essay about Scott v. Sandford (1857)

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is regarding a slave in Missouri, his name was Dred Scott who resided in Illinois from the years 1833 to 1843. Illinois was considered to be a free state at this time, he lived in an area of the Louisiana Territory, this was a place where slavery was completely forbidden from the Missouri Compromise in 1830. Eventually Scott returned to Missouri, after doing so he decided to sue the Missouri court for his freedom, he was unsuccessful. His argument was that he claimed residency in a free territory area and this would make him a free man. Since this did not work Scott brought a new suit in federal court. But Scott’s master maintained that since he was a pure-blooded Negro of the African descent and also the descendant

In 1820,the Missouri Compromise was passed. The law stated that any state below the lands north of latitude 36°30′ were slave states and those above were free states. This Compromise was passed so Missouri would become a legal slave state. Southerners desperately wanted this act passed because at the time the more states and land you had the more powerful

Dred Scott was a slave to Peter Blow family who suffered financial constraints then later sold Scott to a surgeon John Emerson. Emerson moved with Scott to Fort Snelling where slavery was not allowed by Missouri Compromise. During his period at Fort Snelling, Scott married Harriet Robinson a slave too with whom they had two children. Emerson and Scott’s family later moved back to St Louis in the year 1940 where they lived. In 1946 Dr. Emerson passed on, and Scott’s family was left behind with Emerson’s widow as their master. After Dr. Emerson demise, Scott sued Emerson’s family arguing that by him having stayed in Fort Snelling, he had attained his freedom while there and he was a free man. In sought of his freedom, the case was presented to State court, but unfortunately, he lost in case. The case was appealed, and in the year 1857, the case was ruled out by Chief Justice Roger Taney. In the ruling, the court ruled out that, Scotts was not allowed to claim any US citizenship as blacks who were salves or free were not allowed to do so. The ruling also claimed that Scotts had never been free as he was a slave and they were considered as personal property (Konig, Finkelman, & Bracey, 2010). The ruling led to consequences and effects in the US that affected the country politically, culturally and legally as outlined in the paper.

Many times during our class discussions and lectures we tried to examine the stages leading up to the succession and Civil War in America. During the critical time period of the middle 19th century, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision of the Supreme Court was one of those major treads on the pathway to secession. The man Dred Scott was taken to Missouri with Peter Blow as a slave from Virginia and sold. His new master from Missouri then moved to the free state of Illinois for a while, but later moved back to Missouri. Following his master 's passing, Scott asserted that since he had resided in a free state, he was inevitably a free citizen.

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

This decision did not go to Dred Scott's favor. The Supreme Court had decided that Dred Scott was not a person, but rather property so that meant wherever Dred went he was still going to be considered a slave. This caused a repeal in the Missouri Compromise and angered most northerners because this meant slavery could be spread to

The trial was won primarily by Dred Scott, but the Missouri Supreme Court in 1852 rejected the sense of judgment of the lower Court and away from numerous precedents annulled the principle of "once free, always free". By then, the case had already taken some notoriety, especially for the intensity with which slavery was being discussed throughout the country. Once defeated in the local instance, Dred lawyers filed a lawsuit in Federal Court. They chose the strategy of starting the case with the lower Federal Courts because they feared that some judicial precedents could

　　　　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

Unfortunately for the Scotts the circuit ruled in favor of Mrs. Emerson. The Scotts however were allowed to refile their suit and in 1850,in a third trial, Scott is declared a free man on the basis of having lived in non-slavery territories of Wisconsin and Illinois. Mrs. Emerson however filed an appeal and the Missouri Supreme Court returned Scott to slavery. After filing suit once more and losing the case, this time against John Sanford, Irene’s brother who was presumably Scotts new owner, Scott’s lawyers appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court in 1856.The Supreme Court’s decision would “affect not only him, but all black people in the United States.”#

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.

     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.

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...)

In 1846, a slave living in Missouri named Dred Scott, sued for his freedom on the basis that he had lived for a total of seven years in territories that were closed to slavery. Scott's owner had been an army doctor named John Emerson. Emerson's position had required him to move several times in a relatively short amount of time. During his time with Emerson, Scott had lived in the state of Illinois, which was

The Court also ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories. And lastly, the Court declared that the rights of slave-owners were constitutionally protected by the Fifth Amendment because slaves were bought by owners, labeling them as property. In the North, antislavery supporters were outraged by the outcome of the Dred Scott case, strengthening the newly submitted Republican Party and helping ignite the violence between slave-owners and abolitionists on the frontier. The Missouri Compromise was declared unconstitutional under the laws made in the Dred Scott v. Stanford Supreme Court Case in 1857. The case gave Northerners a reason to fear Southern slave power. It left the nation indecisive on the actions it should take to replenish the nation of what it needs to settle the sectional tensions in which were causing our country to fall apart.