History

Source 3

"Henry Raymond: 'The Dred Scott Decision' (1857)." In The American Mosaic: The African American Experience, ABC-CLIO, 2019.Accessed December 15, 2019. http://africanamerican.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/1648462.

Source. 4

"Scott v. Sandford (1857)." In American Government, ABC-CLIO, 2019. Accessed December 15, 2019. http://americangovernment.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/209823.

Who was Dred Scott?

- A slave born in Virginia, 1799 - Sued for his freedom on the grounds that his. master before dying had taken him to a Illinois and Wisconsin, which were free states -His first appeal was negated but he claimed a mistrial and the second time around he was emancipated, but Irene Sandford, his owner's wife took the case to a higher court in which the decision was reverse the case then reached the Supreme Court and became known as one of the most controversial Supreme Court rulings.

Source 1

Alexander, Leslie M. "Dred Scott v. Sandford." In American Government, ABC-CLIO, 2019. Accessed December 15, 2019. http://americangovernment.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/1561781.

Republicans

Disagreed with Taney's decision as they felt the Missouri compromise was constitutional and that. slavery was unconstitutional and slaves should have rights.

Source 5

Green, Michael. "Public Responses off Base." In American History, ABC-CLIO, 2019. Accessed December 15, 2019. http://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/1549900.

Seven justices concurred (although Samuel Nelson concurred with the ruling but not its reasoning), and two justices, Benjamin R. Curtis and John McLean, dissented. Regardless, Taney's majority opinion unequivocally illustrated the strength and power of slavery in the United States. Taney declared that as a slave, Scott was not a citizen of the United States and therefore had no right to bring suit in the federal courts on any matter. In addition, he declared that Scott had never been free because slaves were personal property; thus, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional, and the federal government had no right to prohibit slavery in the new territories.^1

It was a seven to two decision in favor of Sandford. The final ruling was that Scott was never a citizen of the United States and therefore never had the right to sue the court, additionally it declared slaves were property, making the Missouri compromise unconstitutional.

He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights.^4

One can be entitled to the right and privileges of his or her own State but not have the same rights at. another State. The constitutional made it. possible for states to have their own definitions of citizenship and to decide who is entitled to its privileges.

Source 2

Rodriquez, Alicia. "Dred Scott." In American History, ABC-CLIO, 2019. Accessed December 9, 2019. http://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/247827.

What was the final ruling

Slaves were personal property and had no civil rights, therefore they. could not sue the court and the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional

Democrats

Supported the decision and tits author, and hoped it would cause an end to Republican antislavery.

began in 1846, when Dred Scott sued for his freedom on the grounds that he had been illegally held in bondage in a free state. ^1

The case began in 1846 when Scott claimed his freedoms on the ground that he had resided in a free state.

"Undeterred, Scott's lawyers next appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, a decision that launched the Dred Scott case into the national spotlight. In fact, even President-elect James Buchanan expressed interest in the case. Concerned about the growing divide over the issue of slavery, Buchanan sent a letter to Supreme Court Justice John Catron, asking whether the U.S. Supreme Court would decide the case before his inauguration in March 1857. Buchanan hoped that the Court would issue a decisive ruling that would remove the question of slavery from political debate, thereby quieting the social and political unrest plaguing the fragile Union."^2

The Appeal of the case to the Supreme Court put the case under the National spotlight. It was debated across the nation, and even cause the President-elect was concerned by it. James Buchanan hoped the case would be settled before inauguration therfore he would not have to discuss the controversial issue of. slavery and its constitutionality.

Why was it controversial?

The case brought to light issues such as slave rights, and constitutional power. The decision also exacerbated pre existing conflicts as Republican felt the decision demonstrated judicial injustice.

"In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Scott v. Sandford, a decision that definitively articulated the government's position on slavery and the rights of the country's black population. In the end, the majority opinion upheld the notion that slavery was both legal and constitutional and further asserted that free black people were not entitled to the full and equal rights of citizenship." ^1

The case of Scott v. Sanford brought to light the issue of slave rights. The case determined that slavery was constitutional and that those enslaved had no civil right therefore Dred Scott could not sue the court.

They argued not only that Scott was a slave and not a citizen, but also that he could not have become even temporarily a freeman by residing in a free territory because the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. Because the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise was a hotly contested issue in the 1850s, Scott v. Sandford was immediately placed at the center of a political firestorm.^1

The case was deemed highly controversial not only because of its ruling but because of the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise which was a controversial issue itself.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Scott v. Sandford was devastating not only to the Scotts but also to antislavery activists and the entire black community. In fact, many historians have argued that the Dred Scott decision ultimately brought the United States one step closer to Civil War

The decision did not only affect Scott but it affected the nation, mainly antislavery activists. It showed that Federal government supported slavery, and brought the U.S. one step closer to the Civil War.

It has gone ahead on the wings of the wind over all the world, that the Supreme Court of the United States, in the middle of the nineteenth century, had put an interpretation upon the Constitution of the country, which, if it were to be sustained, would throw our national character back from its place in the vanguard of Christian civilization, to a level with that of Austria or Russia.^3

The decision showed an oppressive. side of American government as it negated right to African Americans.

Taney's opinion and the Court's ruling outraged Republicans on all counts and exacerbated sectional tensions."^2

The idea that slaves were property and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional enraged Republican, and elevated sectional conflicts.

"First, Taney ruled that the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on taking property without due process of law meant that Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in the federal territories. Property, slaves included, could be taken legally into the territories". ^2

The judge assigned to the case, Taney, declared the Missouri compromise unconstitutional, claiming that Congress did not have the power to create free states.