ipl-logo

Summary Of The Dred Scott Case

776 Words4 Pages

During the early-to-mid 1800s, the North and South had begun to seriously argue on the issue of slavery. While the South were in favor of keeping slavery, the North could not wait to be rid of it. The decision of the Dred Scott case would be known as an important event which would spark the friction between the North and South to rise drastically. Dred Scott, an African American slave, sued for his freedom because he had lived in a free state for most of his time in the United States. In the ruling at Supreme Court, Chief Justice Taney had ruled that because he was an African American slave, Dred Scott could not sue for the reason that Scott was not a citizen and that he was property. As a matter of fact, it was regarded that slaves were indeed …show more content…

In the ruling of this case, it was announced that slaves located in any territory, free state or slave state, could not be given their freedom unless consented by the owner. In the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, it is said that the government cannot dispossess private property from an individual without fair payment. With that being said, slaves were considered as private property of their owners. This would not allow the government of any free state to consent a slave its freedom without consent from the slaveowner. In a nutshell, the status of free blacks in the United States was very much affected by the Dred Scott case …show more content…

Due to the rulings of the court, it became regarded that by banning slavery in certain territories, the Missouri Compromise was very unconstitutional due to the fact that it would be taking away the private property possessed by the slaveowners, which was against the Bill of Rights. With the compromise be rid of, slavery was allowed in any territory, which meant that all states were to be considered “slave states”. The people of the Northern states were enraged by this decision. Friction between Northerners and Southerners grew dramatically and would cause the Civil War to take place, eventually ending slavery in the United States. With that being said, the Dred Scott case decision had very much influenced the future of slavery in

Show More
Related
509 Words | 3 Pages

Dred Scott was taken back into slavery and accused Sandford because Scott was in a free states and claimed that he was in the free state long enough to be a free slave. The Supreme court ruled against Dred Scott, this decision affected blacks preventing them to become citizens and an giving them the right to appeal to a jury and making it harder for a slave to escape because the free states didn’t make a runaway slave a free slave. The case also affected popular sovereignty. Where states got to choose if they were to be a free states or a slave

Read More
774 Words | 4 Pages

In the Dred Scott v. Sandford case in 1957, a black man named Dred Scott who at the time was living in Illinois and previously in free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had gone against the government and appealed to the Supreme Court hoping he would get the grant of freedom. Scott attempted to sue the the Missouri courts for his freedom, but ultimately failed in the end. He was claiming that his residence in a freed territory made him a free man, but the courts resided. Eventually, Scott brought this case to the Supreme Court which caused a big dispute between the people in America about the

Read More
540 Words | 3 Pages

This created further division within the United States as more new territories chose sides. The Supreme Court ruling in Dredd Scott v. Sanford in 1857 declared that African Americans were not citizens and therefore Congress could not prohibit the expansion of slavery into the territories. That ruling emboldened slave owners, seeing it as validation of their rights, while it enraged

Read More
1873 Words | 8 Pages

In the Dred Scott vs Sandford Court Case, the US supreme court proved this by declaring that black slaves were just considered property and could not sue in court. Dred Scott, an african slave, came with his owner to the Northwest Ordinance during the mid eighteenth century and lived there for two years. However, Congress previously declared that slavery was outlawed within that territory within the Missouri Compromise, as it stated any states above the 36 parallel were free states. As a result Dred Scott believed that he should have been freed and sued his owner till it got to the Supreme Court, where he was declared as just property, not as United States citizen, therefore not allowed to sue in court. “Dred Scott was a negro slave, the lawful property of the defendant; and as to the issue thirdly above joined, we, the jury, find that wife of said Dred Scott, and Eliza and Lizzie, the daughters of the said Dred Scott, were negro slaves, the lawful property of the defendant."

Read More
601 Words | 3 Pages

Not only is it a big part of History, but slavery could possibly still exist today if it wasn 't emancipated by President Lincoln. We can apply our knowledge from the Dred Scott decision to conflicts in racism today. We can compare where we are in racism and conflict to when the Dred Scott vs Sandford case was happening in 1857. Applying our knowledge from the Dred Scott decision is good because we know that, in history, African Americans couldn 't become citizens and were called property. Keeping America multicultural is important and we can do so by using our knowledge of the Dred Scott

Read More
871 Words | 4 Pages

Dred Scott was a slave who tried to sue his owner because he said since he lived in a free state he was a free man. The north went on to back up the dred scott by using the missouri compromise and that in the constitution the writers meant “we the people” as everybody including slaves, so that gives them the rights of a citizen. The south had many arguments one being the missouri compromise was unconstitutional and congress couldn’t tell states if they could be free or slave and what the can do with their property. Lastly slaves or former slaves for that matter had no rights of a citizen. In document H the fugitive slave act of 1850 it talks about how slave owners have the right to claim their slaves if they escape no matter where they escape to.

Read More
1206 Words | 5 Pages

Further, the judge revoked the law stating that frontier and other free territories would no longer be free and that black people would no longer have the right to appear in court. The judge also made it a law in the Dred Scott decision that, “no black person could be a citizen of the United States”. (Foner, p. 57). The outcome of the supreme court case of Dred Scott v. Sandford showed how completely the justice system failed and hindered the rights of African Americans. This controversial case was an obvious example of how freedom didn’t change for African Americans.

Read More
756 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
1279 Words | 6 Pages

The Dred Scott Decision & History Dred Scott was a African American born in 1795 (1800) to a slave family, in Southampton County, Virginia. Dred Scott was owned by Peter Blow and his family who later moved to Alabama then to Missouri. In the year 1832 Peter passed away Scott was then bought by an army surgeon Dr. John Emerson. In 1836 Scott fell in love with Harriet Robinson, Dr. Emerson bought her and they soon were wed. Soon after Emerson took both slaves and his family with him to the states of Illinois and Wisconsin both of which were free states at the time. John Emerson most likely didn't see this to be an issue since he did not consider himself to live in the state, only to be stationed there.

Read More
1033 Words | 5 Pages

Another example of growing sectional divisions over the issue of slavery spreading is the Dred Scott Decision of 1857 (Doc 9). In this court case, the U.S. supreme court ruled that slaves have no rights, and that slavery was free to expand into the territories. This decision pleased southern defenders of slavery, and angered northern abolitionists, further dividing the

Read More
451 Words | 2 Pages

Dred Scott’s case had also intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery. In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Dred had been “left” by his master for a long time with no word from his master. Dred Scott has decided to challenge for his freedom because he had built a “new life” and his master suddenly one day decided to call him back to him after not hearing from him for months. The court had ruled that African Americans were not citizens, but rather property, and could not sue in

Read More
1809 Words | 8 Pages

The Supreme Court presiding over the Dred Scott case was mostly Southerners who feared that the South was in grave danger. Given this fact, it was no surprise that the Supreme Court ruled against Scott, stating that as a Missourian slave, Scott was not a citizen and so not afforded the rights due to a citizen, including the right to sue for his freedom. As a second measure, the Supreme Court also decreed that Congress had no constitutional right to ban the movement of private property, or in this case slaves, from any territory or state. Buchanan's mistake was that he interfered. Before his inaugural speech, Buchanan learned that the Supreme Court’s decision was going to be in favour of the South.

Read More
359 Words | 2 Pages

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

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 Summary Of The Dred Scott Case

Related Topics

Open Document