The Dred Scott V. Sandford Case

In 1875, John Smith was unjustly arrested for an assault charge placed against him by his wife and the mother of his children. It began with a standard marital argument that included subjects such finances, the husbands sporadic work schedule and the wife’s claim that the John Smith’s drinking only made their problems worse. Mr. Smith told his wife that “he had not been drinking and that if (she) did not shut up that he would hit her”(Smith). Mrs. Smith continued to shout at her husband, all the while being in front of their child and the neighbors child. Mr. Smith then proceeded to walk over to a pile of kindling wood and a picked a piece about (roughly two inches in diameter) and then proceeded to walk back over to his wife with the piece

In 1857 the Supreme Court overruled a previous decision by the circuit court of St. Louis County, Missouri. The Case of Dred Scott versus John F. A. Sandford would go down in history as one of the courts most erroneous rulings. This verdict called into question a slaves rights in free states, popular sovereignty and the legality of the Missouri Compromise. Dred Scott had won a previous court battle over his former master John Sandford claiming that he had assaulted his wife and children and that he should in fact be a free man because he had been moved to Illinois and Wisconsin for a time. Since both were free territories he should in fact be free.

The court case Dred Scott vs. Sanford — 1856 to 1857 — was vital regarding the lives of enslaved or non-liberated African Americans. The outcome of this trial changed the perspective of slaves all across the United States. Rights concerning liberated and enslaved Americans from Africa were declared and enforced in this case. In 1833, John Emerson — a medical surgen of the US Army — purchased a slaved named Dred Scott.

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 dedicated man who stood strongly for his declaration of independence. Dred Scott was an enslaved African American man who had been taken by his owner, Dr. John Emerson, to Free states and territories with his wife Harriet Scott and later attempted to sue for his own and families freedom. The Case is known as Dred Scott vs. Sandford or the “Dred Scott Decision.” Dred Scott was born around 1795, in Southampton County, Virginia. His parents were slaves so as a child he was raised into a home of slavery.

The Civil War settled the fate of slavery. The victory of the Union assured the freedom of enslaved African Americans. “The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution granted freedom, citizenship, and equal protection of the law to all born in the United States, and declared that the right to vote could not be denied because of race or color. In effect, these amendments grafted the Declaration of Independence onto the

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney made a pro-slavery ruling in the 1857 Dred Scott Case that deemed blacks were not considered citizens of the United States (History.com, 2016). Dred Scott was a slave owned by John Emerson who had spent lots of his time in Illinois and eventually Wisconsin, which was free territory. Scott felt that since he spent most of his residency in a free territory that he should be considered free. But unfortunately the Supreme Court denied citizenship to black people, setting the stage for their treatment as second class citizens, leading to the Jim Crow Laws. Jim Crow laws are statutes and ordinances that were formed to create "separate but equal" facilities for the black and white races of the south(softschools.com,

In 1857, an African American man named Dred Scott sued for his freedom in the Supreme Court. His owners brought him along on their trips across free states. Dred Scott failed in suing before his case was presented in the Supreme Court. Roger B. Taney was the fifth chief Justice of the United States when he wrote the Dred Scott vs Sandford decision. The Dred Scott vs Sandford case ended with the decision that African Americans, free and enslaved, had no rights and could not become citizens because they were property.

America’s founders created the constitution in order to create unification and order in the United States. However, there have been controversy surrounding the interpretation of the constitution, this has caused debate over many issues within the country. These issues and the lack of wartime policy within the constitution directly lead to the Civil War, which was one of the worst alterations this nation has faced. The Missouri compromise, the Dred Scott decision, and Bleeding Kansas were controversial issues surrounding the constitution that directly lead to the Civil War.

This amendment granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed by the Thirteenth Amendment. In addition to granting citizenship, it forbids states from denying anyone "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” no matter who they were. The 14th Amendment expanded the protection of civil rights tremendously to all Americans no matter color or race and is cited in more litigations than any other amendment of the United States today. On June 22, 1866, precisely fourteen days after the senate passed the Fourteenth Amendment, President Andrew Johnson issued a message to Congress announcing that the Fourteenth Amendment had been sent to the states for ratification. Johnson voiced his negative opinion of the amendment by stating that his actions should "be considered as purely ministerial, and in no sense whatever committing the Executive to an approval or a recommendation of the amendment to the State legislatures or to the

( http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/scott/impact.html) The case was known as the Dred Scott V. Sanford which impacted all African Americans throughout the U.S. Dred Scott said he was a free man because

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.

By March 1861, seven southern states seceded before the inauguration of President Lincoln. They seceded for a number of reasons, but not for any of the following reasons. The Dred Scott decision was an event that did not influence the decision to secede, since in the end, Dred Scott and his family remained as slaves (despite having lived in a Slave state and a Free state). Then, while important, the Wilmot Proviso had no contribution to the secession of the South. While it did address the controversy of the issue of slavery in new states, both of it‘s propositions were turned down and had no effect.

The case that changed it all came in 1857 as in the North people were also angered over the Dred Scott decision as it only widened the political and social gap between the North and South and took the nation only closer to a civil war. Dred Scott was a slave that was taken to a free slave state with his master and lived on the land for a long time to be only returned to Missouri, which was a slave state but his master passed away and Dred Scott decided to sue for his freedom by the help of abolitionist lawyers. Dred Scott claimed he should be free since he had lived on free soil for many years. In 1857, Dred Scott lost due to decision by seven out of nine of Justices on the Supreme Court voted he must be a citizen, so as a non-citizen he could not sue in a federal court and must go back to being a slave. Howard on page 33 states perfectly what this decision was truly meant by stating, “As relates to these States, it is too plain for argument, that they have never been regarded as a part of the people or citizens of the State, nor supposed to possess any political rights which the dominant race might not withhold or grant at their pleasure.”

The Dred Scott Decision was a significant turning point in the political arguments surrounding slavery. Not only did it state that slaves did not apply to the Constitution because they were deemed property, but it also decreed that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and no longer applied. The Supreme Court’s ruling meant that slave labor could be practiced nationwide, and Congress could not ban slavery. To abolitionists, this was horrible news that went against their whole movement. White Southerners, though, could have seen this as a great decision, for that meant they could build more plantations and utilize slavery even in free states.