Dred Scott V. Sandford Case Study

Savannah Gitchel
Mrs. Hodges-Bond
Cambridge US History
3 October 2016
Meeting of the Minds
Dred Scott
The Dred Scott v. Sandford case was a pivotal point in leading America to civil war. The Supreme Court stated that even though Scott was in a free state, he was still the property of his owner and had to remain that way. Abolitionists were angered even further by this decision, whether they wanted complete abolishment, or just to stop the spread of slavery into the North. Reversely, the south was overjoyed with the decision. This increased the sectional conflict between the North and South. The slave in this case became arguably the most popular slave in the nation. So let me introduce myself. I am Dred Scott.

I was born in 1795 to slave

In 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney made an announcement on the court’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled that black Americans were not citizens and didn 't have the same rights as white people. Whether a black man was a slave or free, he could never become a US Citizen. This meant I didn 't have the right to even file his lawsuit. The Constitution was twisted in many ways by the court in this case. Since slaves were considered property, the government couldn 't constitutionally justify taking me away from my owner. The government also couldn 't prohibit slavery or stop it from spreading to free states. This argument is from amendment 10 in the constitution that states that the federal government only has powers that are delegated to them by the states or the people through the constitution. In other words, if the constitution doesn 't prohibit something, the court can 't prohibit it. There was no amendment for slavery since the United States was split geographically on their views. Basically, the Supreme Court couldn 't outlaw slavery in US territories. Also, Taney stated that slaveholders could take their slaves anywhere in the United States since they

Questions:
To Group- Could the civil war have been prevented if the court had ruled in favor of Dred Scott (Myself)?
To Chief Justice Roger B. Taney- If a slave is moved by their owner to a free state for an extended amount of time, should they be granted freedom?
To group- Should the court consider slaves to be property?

There are many parallels between the ruling in my case and the Compromise of 1850. The fugitive slave act was passed in this compromise. The act stated that anyone who interfered with a slave owner’s rights to their slaves would receive criminal penalties. It also restricted the rights that fugitive slaves had to a fair trial. Although I wasn 't a fugitive slave or a runaway, the court still ruled against me because ruling for me would mean they were interfering with Emerson’s rights to her property.

My case ruling, along with the Compromise of 1850, basically crushed the idea of the Underground Railroad. Even if slaves got to a free state, if they were found, they 'd be given right back to their owners. And even though I lived in a free state, I was