Dred+Scott+v.+Sanford

Dred Scott v. Sanford USE ITALICS FOR COURT CASE TITLES 1856-1857 DECISION IN 1857

3/3

Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia in 1799. In 1834 COMMA Dr. John Emerson bought Scott and moved him to a Illinois, a free state. Later they moved to Fort Snelling in present-day Minnesota, an area in which slavery had been prohibited under the Missouri Compromise of 1820. In Fort Snelling, Emerson bought Harriet, another slave. Scott married her in 1836 and they had two daughters named Eliza and Lizzie. When Emerson died in 1843 and left his possessions, including the Scotts, to his wife, Dred Scott asked to work for money to earn enough to by the freedom of himself and his family. Scott sued Mrs. Emerson for "false imprisonment" claiming that he had been held illegally. In 1850 when Mrs. Emerson moved to Massachusetts, she left her brother, John F.A. Sanford in charge of her financial issues. Including the case against Dred Scott.
 * II. Summary of the Case**

The jury sided with Scott and his family because of the doctrine "once free, always free". John Sanford appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court in 1852, with two of the three judges siding with Sanford and Emerson, reversing the earlier precedent. DECISION - A PRECEDENT IS A LONG TERM RULING Judge Robert W. Wells of the U.S. Court for the District of Missouri rejected Sanfords assertion about Scott's inablity to sue in 1854. Wells did, however COMMA inform the jury that Scott was subject only to laws of Missouri. The jury ultimately decided with Sanford. Dred Scott's lawyers then appealed the Superme Court, but feared a majority of the justces would not consider the case and endorse the state court without review. When the Supreme Court finally announced its decision, political divisons over slavery had worsened from when Scott's case was first brought to court.

GOOD 5/5

Dred Scott, born in a slave state, was moved to a ftee SPELL state. He argued that under the "Once free always free" doctrine EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS he was a free man when his owner moved to a free state. TRUE, BUT WHAT QUESTIONS DID THE COURT HAVE TO ANSWER? WERE SLAVES CONSIDERED CITIZENS? DID THEY HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS? 3.5/5
 * III. Constitutional/Legal Issue**

The supreme court decision, ultimately, was that Scott and his family were slaves. The vote was 7 to 2 in Sanford's favor. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney declared in Scott's case that blacks were not citizens of the United States and could never become citizens whether they were free or enslaved. The court also found the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional making slavery legal in every territory of the United States. WHAT DID THE MISSORUI COMPROMISE SAY?
 * IV. Decision**

5/5

The significance of this case was simply that times were changing even in as little time as from 1847 to 1850. However, the mentality of people on the subject of slavery was going backwards. Early in the case, most people would have sided with Scott on being free or a slave, but by the time the case made it to the supreme court, the general mentality of people was sliding towards Sanford's side of the argument. YOU ARE BEING TOO GENERAL. THIS WAS A NORTH/SOUTH ARGUMENT. SOUTHERNERS OBVIOUSLY CHEERED THE DECISION AND NORTHERNERS WERE NOT HAPPY, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE PART OF THE DECISION. THIS WAS A MAJOR EVENT LEADING TO THE CIVIL WAR! 3/5
 * V. Significance**

The Oyez Project, Dred Scott v. Sandford ,  60 U.S. 393 (1857) available at: ([|http://oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1856/1856_0]) (last visited Friday, November 6, 2009).
 * VII. Bibliography**

(n.d.). //Dred scott's fight for freedom//. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html

(n.d.). //Dred scott v. sandford (1857)//. Retrieved from http://www.landmarkcases.org/dredscott/background3.html

2/2

22/25 = 88% (B) YOU DO A GOOD JOB OF SUMMARIZING THE CASE AND THE RULING, BUT YOU DID NOT PUT IT IN THE PROPER HISTORICAL CONTEXT. THIS WAS A MAJOR EVENT LEADING UP TO THE CIVIL WAR.