ipl-logo

History Of Dred Scott Vs Sanford

747 Words3 Pages

Dred Scott vs. Sanford is a Supreme Court case landmark. About a man born into slavery and taken to a free state and fight for his freedom. It is important to learn and understand about its History, background, constitutional issue, and current impact.
There are many historical facts about the Dred Scott court case. Peter Blow was Dred Scott’s master since birth. They moved from Virginia to Alabama and then in 1830 he moved to St. Louis, Missouri. When peter blow die d he was bought off to an army surgeon Dr. John Emerson .Who later took him to the free state of Illinois. After 2 ½ years in 1836 Scott and Emerson moved to a fort in Wisconsin Territory where he met and married his wife Harriet Robinson. Harriet owner transferred her to Emerson. …show more content…

Dred Scott was born a slave around 1795. His parents and his older brother were also slaves own by Peter Blow. They relocated to Huntsville, Alabama to St. Louis Missouri. 1836 when Scott was owned by Dr. John Emerson he fell in love with the 19 year old Harriet Robinson who was 15 years younger and was owned by another doctor. Her Ownership was transferred to Emerson. April 1838 Harriet was pregnant. Harriet gave birth in the free waters and Eliza Scott was born. In St. Louis Scott worked for various people while the Emerson’s collected wages. Around this time their second daughter was born Lizzie Scott. When Emerson Died neither Dred nor Harriet was in his will but Mrs. Emerson took them as her property anyway. They moved in with Mrs. Emerson’s proslavery father. They worked for other people for a while Mrs. Emerson collected the wages. Scott then offered $300 dollars for him and his family’s freedom and when she declined he sued. This is when the Dred Scott case happened. September 17 1858 Dred Scott got tuberculosis and died. Because of his famous freedom lawsuit he was known by lots of people.
Scott Didn’t get his freedom through the courts like he expected there was a lot of constitutional issues. A man named Roger Taney under Articles 3 and 4. No one but a citizen of the United States can be a citizen of a state. Roger Taney stated that no one that was descend

Show More
Related
561 Words | 3 Pages

Roger Brooke Taney made history in the 1857 Dred Scott Case by ruling that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. This controversial historical figure died on October 12, 1864, in Washington, D.C. One of Robert’s most famous quotes was "What Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free state of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or 1,000 slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free state. "What Robert is saying is that a master of a slave can do whatever he/she wants with that slave. By the time Roger B Taney became Chief Justice, Taney had become a staunch supporter of slavery, even though he had manumitted eleven slaves he inherited as a young man and made anti-slavery statements when serving as defense

Read More
1028 Words | 5 Pages

Dred Scott, a slave who frequently moved from the pro-slavery Missouri and antino-slavery Illinois, offered to buy his freedom after his master died. However, the master’s wife refused, which as a result, Scott sued her. Scott’s suit originated from the basis of how because that he had lived in a non-slave state, he was no longer a slave.. Through a long process of 11 years, his case eventually reached the Supreme Court in Scott vs. Sandford. The Chief Justice of this caseourt was Roger B. Taney.

Read More
961 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
880 Words | 4 Pages

Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia around 1795, he then lived in the free state of Illinois and in the free territory, where slavery was prohibited under the Missouri Compromise of 1820. However, in 1846, the Scotts sued for their freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri. They argued that their years of living in free territories had freed them from slavery, they lost that case. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney concluded that making slavery illegal in certain territories, Congress had exceeded its authority under the Constitution, that just because Dred Scott was black he was not considered a citizen and could not sue the federal courts. Moreover, instead of resolving the controversy, the case increased the conflict over slavery in the country (Scott v. Sandford (1857), page 336).

Read More
367 Words | 2 Pages

This one particular case Dred Scott vs Sanford. It is about Dred Scott being born in Virginia, and was a slave. His owner moved to Alabama, and took him with him, then sold him to a guy that moved with Dred Scott to Illinois witch was a slave free state but he wasn 't free,so he fought for it. The slave may have won if they hadn 't made the Missouri compromise,witch ruled against him. Junius P. Rodriguez says it is

Read More
601 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
513 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
873 Words | 4 Pages

Louis, Missouri by his owners in 1830. In the following years soon after moving he was sold to Dr. John Emerson. With his owner being an army doctor they traveled very frequently, leading Dred Scott into many placed against the idea of slavery. For seven years, he lived in slave free territories. After the death of his owner John Emerson, he was then considered property of Emerson’s wife.

Read More
756 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
1098 Words | 5 Pages

Dred Scott was a slave that attempted to sue for his freedom. The case rose to the Supreme Court, and justices ruled in 1857 that slaves were mere property, with none of the rights or recognition assumed to human beings. This decision threatened to overturn the entire basis of the laws that had hitherto managed to prevent a civil war. The classification of slaves as property rose question to the authority of the government to regulate this institution. The Southern states once again challenged the territorial confines of slavery and opposition intensified.

Read More
335 Words | 2 Pages

he Dred Scott decision of 1857 was a significant decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court that declared that blacks, regardless of whether they were free or a slave, had no legal standing because they were not American citizens. The decision was not the first to be made regarding Dred Scott; a Missouri jury ruled in Scott 's favour when Scott claimed that his residence in Illinois and Wisconsin made him free, but the state supreme court ruled against him, which lead to the case being escalated to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court ruled against Scott 7-2. The Dred Scott decision is considered a landmark decision and is indicative of the tumultuous political climate of the time.

Read More
611 Words | 3 Pages

Even though the states had the power to give Scott and his family citizenship since the national government did not the national governments decree overruled the state’s

Read More
359 Words | 2 Pages

The Dred Scott decision of 1865 consisted of several implications on the status of free blacks in the United States, as well as concept of popular sovereignty, and the future of slavery in America. however, I believe the implications of the Dred Scott decision was for the status of free blacks in the United States due to the impacts it caused and the questions it rose. First of all, Dred Scott was an enslaved African American man from Missouri who moved in with his master Peter Blow, in Illinois, a free state. Dred Scott unsuccessfully fought for his freedom by claiming that being a resident in a free state made him a free man. However, in supreme court it was ruled that because blacks can not be recognized as citizens, they did not have

Read More
537 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
685 Words | 3 Pages

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).

Read More

More about History Of Dred Scott Vs Sanford

Related Topics

Open Document