...The Dred Scott Case Scott v. Sandford was Dred Scott’s second attempt at suing for his freedom. Not only did this case spark conflicts between the North and South, but it also was a cause for the Civil War. Even today, a court case has not received as much controversy as Scott v. Sandford (Dred Scott…Case). The controversial case of Dred Scott can be examined through Scott’s motive for suing, the harsh opinion of the Chief Justice, and the outcome and influence of the case. Scott was traveling with his master, John Emmerson, to Illinois and the Wisconsin territory as part of Emmerson’s job and after the death of Emmerson in 1843, Scott decided to sue Emmerson’s wife for his freedom in the state court. He stated that living in free soil made him a free man, but this court case did not go in his favor (Dred Scott v. Sandford). After this court case, Emmerson’s wife sold him to her brother-in-law, John...
Words: 586 - Pages: 3
...Dred Scott was an enslaved African American who was a prominent figure in one of the most well-known court decisions in our history. He was born in Virginia around 1800, owned by Peter Blow and Elizabeth Taylor. Scott worked for the Blows, but later became Dr. John Emerson's body servant when Elizabeth and Peter died in 1831. Scott moved to Fort Armstrong, Illinois, which was the first time Scott had lived in “free” land. In 1836, Dred Scott met Harriet Robinson, a slave owned by a local justice, who soon became his wife. In 1843, Dr. Emerson died, and Dred Scott started to seek freedom. On April 6th, 1846, Dred Scott and Harriet attempted to file suit against Mrs. Emerson to gain freedom. Friends of Scott had encouraged him to sue for freedom, since he had once lived in free territory. Like the Missouri Courts had supported in the past, “once free, always free.” After going to trial on June 30, 1847, the case was dismissed because Scott couldn’t prove that he and his wife were owned by Dr. Emerson. However, in 1850, the case was retried, and the jury recalled the Scotts free! Sadly, Mrs. Emerson wouldn’t accept the court’s decision, Scott became a slave, again. Instead of giving up, Scott received assistance from new lawyers and other supporters, and his case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. On March 6, 1857 Scott learned the decision of his case. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice, revealed, or made previously unknown known, that Dred Scott and his family’s freedom was inevitable...
Words: 399 - Pages: 2
...Dred Scott Vs. Stanford Dred Scott was a 62-year-old slave who sued the Supreme Court in 1857 for his freedom after spending time on territory where slavery was prohibited. The Supreme Court’s pro-slavery decision pleased the Southern Democrats and angered the Northern Republicans. Eventually leading to more abolitionists and Republican fighting to gain control of Congress and the courts. The result of their well led campaign was the election of Abraham Lincoln and brought the country to the verge of the Civil War. Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri from 1833 to 1843. He then was taken to the free territory of Louisiana, lived there for two years and then moved back to Missouri. When in Missouri, Dred Scott went to the Missouri Court and...
Words: 293 - Pages: 2
...Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri who then resided in Illinois, a free state, for ten years. Scott soon returned to Missouri in hopes of suing for his freedom, claiming that residing in Louisiana made him a free man. Dred Scott’s owner claimed that no African American of African descent and slave descendant should be honored a free man in the sense of Article III in the Constitution. The Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1856 had a majority ruling of 7-2, which held portions of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This treated Scott as property rather than a human being. The opposing side stated that before the Constitution was written native-born citizens of African descent were citizens and some were even able to vote;...
Words: 721 - Pages: 3
...Brief description During the 1800’s slavery was a major issue in the U.S. One of the most controversial case was Dred Scott v. Stanford (1857). Scott was a born a slave and was owned to his master Peter. When Scott’s owner died, Peter appointed Dr. John Emerson as Scott’s new slave owner. Emerson was the new slave owner of Scott and traveled to Illinois and Missouri where slavery was outlawed by the Missouri Compromise. Scott wanted his freedom, but his slave owner did not agree with him so the debate ended up in the Supreme Court. Jurisdiction In the beginning, the Supreme Court Justices held that the case had no jurisdiction because Scott was not a considered a citizen. The court was limited to cases between citizens of the states therefore...
Words: 1023 - Pages: 5
...Dred Scott was an enslaved African American man who sued for his freedom in front of the Supreme Court in 1857. Dred Scott was moved to Illinois, which was a free state and lived there for a long time. His owner moved him back to a slave state and said that he still isn't free even though he lived in a free state. Congress had said that if a slave lives in a free state for a certain amount of time, the become free. Sanford did not agree and so he took it to court. The first time they were in favor of Sanford so Scott appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme court also ruled in Sanford's favor saying that Dred Scott was not a person, he was property and therefore could not file a lawsuit because he was not a citizen of the United States. They also declared that congress did not have power to outlaw slavery in any territory. Eventually someone bought Scott and set him free. In Chief Justice Taney’s statement the claim he makes is that Dred Scott is not a person, he was property and therefore could not file a lawsuit because he was not a citizen of the United States. Slaves do not count as citizens and do not apply to “we the people” in the Declaration of...
Words: 540 - Pages: 3
...gender, nationality, religion, disability or age. Dred Scott was told that he was not a citizen of the United States because he was a negro. Well that was until he took it to court. Browns case was made for "separate but equal" public schools for blacks and whites were unconstitutional. The case of Shelley vs Kreamer helped change the outlook today on African Americans owning property. There are three court cases that changed the path of the civil rights which include: The Dred Scott vs Standford case , Brown vs the Board of Education case, and Shelly vs Kreamer case. Dred Scott is a man that went to court to sue against Standford for the right to be considered a citizen and not a piece of property. From 1833- 1843 Dred Scott stayed in Illinois because of the Louisiana territory was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After moving back to Missouri Scott sued for his freedom but was unsuccessful. Then that's when he brought a new case to court. Scotts master says that " no pure-blooded Negro of African descent and the descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution." Dred Scott sued for his freedom and when that didn't work he didn't let it stop him. He...
Words: 551 - Pages: 3
...Dred Scott was an individual who was denied his freedom, treated poorly by the courts, a case in which split the U.S in two. Born into slavery in virginia, Dred was purchased in a Missouri slave market by Army Doctor John Emerson. He was later brought to fort shelling in 1836 by way of Fort Armstrong in Illinois Dred Scott wanted court to set him free, because his owner wanted to take Dred to live in illinois, and wisconsin territory where slavery was legal. Chief Justice Roger Tony saw this case as a way to end the question of slavery. This Dred Scott Decision had the power to legalize slavery all over the U.S. It was ruled that congress had no authority to prevent the spread of slavery to territories, and it was argued that free blacks like Dred had NO RIGHTS to be respected by a white person, and that they can be reduced back into slavery for “white man's benefit”. Dred Married a free slave named Harriet they moved in together into Fort Shelling until 1840 when they sued for freedom 6 years later under the northwest ordinance. The government saw this ordinance as unconstitutional and gave no rights to people of color, nor free slaves. This increased slavery everywhere. This casted Dred into a deep depression. This decision hung over the abolitionist...
Words: 403 - Pages: 2
...Dred Scott had reconnected with the sons of his original owner Peter Blow. Henry and Taylor Blow gave Dred legal advice, as well as financial help, in his quest for Freedom. On April 6, 1846 the Scott family filed a suit for their freedom in county court represented by lawyers Burd and Risk. Thinking they had a solid proof case, as they had been residents of multiple free states for over a decade, the Scotts went into their trial with hope, only to be let down. The case was dismissed due to the cross examination of witness Samuel Russell, who had originally stated that he had hired the Scott family from Ms. Emerson, then later changing his testimony saying his wife made the arrangement and he did not know the terms in which the Scotts came to work for him. The...
Words: 886 - Pages: 4
...Born into a family of slaves in Virginia, Dred Scott eventually became the slave of Dr. Emerson in Missouri. Emerson later took Scott to Illinois, which was a free state prohibiting slavery. In 1836, Emerson was reassigned to the Wisconsin territory, another free part of the United States. When filing the case of illegally being kept enslaved in free land according to the still-valid Missouri Compromise, Scott ultimately lost at the Missouri Supreme Court Level, since access to free land didn't symbolize freedom to slaves (“Dred Scott Case”). As a result of this outcome, Scott decided to then take his case to the United States Supreme Court, where he lost again. The Supreme Court further stated how Scott shouldn’t have been permitted to file this case as they weren’t citizens and also deemed the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional (“Dred Scott Case”). The court said Scott wasn’t a citizen of Missouri because according to the Declaration of Independence, people imported as slaves or their descendants, whether they were free or not, were not intended to be included (Taney 1857). In other words, slaves were considered inferior and property that can’t be taken away from citizens under the terms of the...
Words: 538 - Pages: 3
...The full name of the case of Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford and it took place during 1856 and 1857. It was a decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law and constitutional law. Dred Scott was an enslaved man of “the negro African race” who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories. Montgomery Blair and George Ticknor Curtis were Scott’s lawyer for the case before the Supreme Court case.The Supreme Court then ruled in Sanford’s favor by a 7-2 ruling because they did not consider Scott as a citizen. Since he was not a citizen, he didn’t not have the right to sue Sanford, who is a citizen. The judgment was reversed and the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Following the Missouri Compromise, the...
Words: 267 - Pages: 2
...straining to stay united despite angry conflicts over slavery, especially in the new Western territories.1 Background of the Case In 1857, Missouri slave Dred Scott's case came into this highly charged environment and before the U.S. Supreme Court. Popular sovereignty allowing states to decide the slavery issue and affirming slave owners' right to take their slaves into Western territories were key issues for the court. Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota were free states when Scott lived there with his owner. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, Scott claimed he was free since he had lived...
Words: 886 - Pages: 4
...June 19th, 1862 when the Congress agrees to prohibit slavery in the States, which completely voids the Dred Scott Case. It was an important day because it helped African Americans achieve the rights that they deserved, even though, they never thought they would see the day of gaining these rights. Over the years, these slave’s only hope was to be free. Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri to the Emerson family, but Emerson died in 1846 and that’s when Scott decided to sue for his freedom. The case was ruled in a state court where he lost, but afterwards the case was brought up in a national court. After the case went to national court, Dred Scott lost the case, but was later labeled a free man. Like most things, this Dred Scott case had a lot of positive impacts, as well as some negative impacts. Some impacts include the Republican Party grew more firm because they strongly opposed the courts ruling; and it forced the abolitionist to discard slavery as well and all this tension leads to the civil war. A couple extreme impacts from the Dred Scott Case is it leading to a couple fights, such as Bleeding Kansas, and it also led to the Panic of 1857. Even with these troubles, it seemed worth it because it caused...
Words: 1051 - Pages: 5
...Slavery in the constitution as a result of the case Dred Scott v. Sanford was one of the most stable stepping stones that led America to the Civil War. Dred Scott was an enslaved man owned by Dr. John Emerson who tried to buy his freedom after he had entered free territory and then returned to Missouri. Like many African Americans, Scott was in “no man’s land” in regards to his legal humanity. The 35 Compromise made in 1787 agreed that three out of every 5 slaves was counted when determining a state’s population, blatantly dehumanizing Africans by deeming them as 35 of a person; this set the stage for ambiguity in cases like Dred Scott’s. Scott argued for his freedom using two Missouri Laws: one, that any person held in wrongful enslavement...
Words: 361 - Pages: 2
...The Dred Scott case was a highly controversial case that was brought to the Supreme Court after ten years of appeals. In this case, Dred Scott sued for his family's freedom from slavery, since their master had brought them to territories where slavery was illegal. However, the Supreme Court ruled that freed slaves and their descendants could never be emancipated, and slaves would stay slaves no matter where their master took them. This ruling contributed to the start of the Civil War by making activists angry and bringing even more light to the highly controversial topic of slavery. To begin with, activists were horrified and outraged at the Supreme Court's ruling. They were troubled by the fact that the Constitution said that "all men are...
Words: 295 - Pages: 2
