Dred Scott Vs Stanford Case Study

The Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision had decreed that they could not. Who would prevail, the Court or the

Summary of Source The editorial discloses the power that the Court adheres to and whether it should be accountable for the decision making of fugitive slaves. The writer had discussed that in no way did the verdict of the Dred Scott case follow an act of law, but was merely “nullity.” During the settlement, they decided that since Dred Scott’s master had brought him on free land in Missouri or of the United States without having a citizenship, which resulted in him having no case. It continues on to say that the jurisdiction of the case was influenced by opinion, which did not involve any legalities.

The two parties in this case are Dred Scott and John Sanford. Scott, a former slave bought by Dr. John Emerson, argued that when him and the Emerson family moved to Illinois, which was a free state, that he became a free man and no longer could be held as a slave to the Emerson family when they moved to the slave state of Missouri. Sanford, Mrs. Emerson’s brother, argued that since he went to Missouri with Mrs. Emerson, and that it was legal in Missouri to hold slaves, that he was still considered to be Mrs. Emerson’s property. Once Dr. Emerson died, Scott and his family sued Mrs. Emerson for false imprisonment, but Mrs. Emerson won the case in a Missouri Circuit court when Scott’s lawyers were unable to prove that Emerson was holding him as a slave. Scott’s lawyers argued for a retrial and it went to the Missouri Supreme Court.

Scott had filed another suit in court in 1854 against John Sanford. The case was favored to John Sanford but Scott turned to the U.S. Supreme court. On March 6, 1857, after 11 years of the Dred Scott v. Sanford, seven out of nine judges from the Supreme Court decided that slaves were not citizens of the United States. Which also led to the decision that they had no rights to sue

Dred Scott Vs SandFord The case, Dred Scott vs Sandford, (1857) better known as the Dred Scott case was a crucial decision that affected America and it’s black population. Free blacks in America weren’t able to sue the court. The concept of popular sovereignty was also questioned, and blacks with ancestors were imported to America was slave could no longer become citizens. The Case ruled that slaves in free countries are still slaves.

Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri, but from 1833-1843, he lived in places where slavery was illegal. When Scott returned to Missouri, he believed that because he lived in free territory, he was a free man. He sued without success in Missouri courts. Scott’s master said that Dred Scott couldn’t be a citizen because of Article III of the Constitution. In the end, Dred Scott lost and had to return to slavery.

Prior to this decision, Dred was enslaved in Alabama, then was brought to Missouri. From there, he was sold to John Emerson, who brought him to Wisconsin territory. Soon after, he was brought back to Missouri. Once in Missouri, Dred Scott, and his wife Harriet filed for their freedom in Missouri court. Eleven years later, Chief Justice Roger Taney denied Scott in Washington D.C. due to three rulings; African-Americans had no rights in federal court, Slave states no longer had to follow the doctrine “Once free, Always free”, Congress should never have banned slavery in any territories.

Besides this, the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, was an unfair ruling against Dred Scott, a slave who should have been entitled to freedom. This injustice greatly enraged Northerners because to them, it was an evident victory of Southerners. Although

Irene Emerson that Dred Scott and his family were free. On March 22, 1852 the Missouri Supreme Court reversed it. Dred Scott and his attorneys went to the Federal Court, the United States Supreme Court. On March 6, 1857 the court said that the Scott family would stay slaves. Chief Justice Roger Taney said that because the Scott’s were African Americans they were not citizens of the United States and could not sue for their freedom.

Dred Scott was born was a slave in the state of Virginia and was owned by Peter Blow, who died in 1832. Scott only had two masters after Blow’s death; one lived in Wisconsin and later Illinois, both of which prohibited slavery, yet, Scott didn’t petition for freedom. Instead he met his wife Harriet. The two met their new master in Louisiana, who did not grant them freedom, so Scott looked for legal action to escape his slavery. Over a period of seven years, he went through trial and retrial until he was denied his final freedom in 1854.

Dred Scott Dred Scott was born into slavery in the state of Virginia in 1799, but spent many years in several other states in which he was illegally enslaved. Having to move to Missouri with his slave master, Scott spent many years with him as a slave until his master passed away and he was then purchased by John Emerson. When Scott’s owner refused to free him, he then sued for his freedom. Dred Scott lived from 1799 to september 17, 1858. Dred Scott was the first enslaved african american to sue for his freedom, he formed a foundation for future laws against slavery with this case, and he gave hope to all who opposed slavery.

The end result of the Dred Scott decision was Chief Justice Roger Taney 's decision that Congress did not possess the jurisdiction to stop slavery from spreading into other territories, even if they were considered free. Even worse, any free Black could now be allowably forced into slavery. Being forced into slavery was also seen as being beneficial to the free Blacks. Instead of reaching a decision as President Buchanan had hoped, it had started a rapid expansion of the conflict. This rapid expansion over the issue of slavery eventually led to the Civil War.

In conclusion, I believe the implications of the Dred Scott decision of 1865 was for the status of free blacks in the United States. Dred Scott, the African American slave fought for his freedom in Illinois, but was unsuccessful. The court’s decision rose questions and greatly impacted the status of free blacks. The slaves and the free blacks did not apply to the constitution, and were not recognized as citizens, which rose questions as to what rights they had and did not

Dred Scott was sued for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived for a time in a "free" territory. The Court ruled against him, saying that under the Constitution, he was his master 's property. The people involved with this court case are the Supreme Court,Dred Scott, and Chief Justice Roger B. The final judgment for this case ended up in Dred Scott 's favor.

Dred Scott was a slave who attempted to gain his freedom. Scott was owned by a man for the early part of his life, and then was sold to a new man once his original owner died (Tindall 672). He followed his new owner around the country, and lived in several free states (Tindall 672). Once his second owner died, Scott filed for his freedom (Tindall 672). After going through a rigorous process, the court finally decided that Scott had no grounds for his case because he was not actually a citizen (Tindall 672).