What was the argument of Dred Scott’s lawyers?
Dred Scott’s lawyers reiterated their earlier argument that because he and his family had resided in the Louisiana territory, Scott was legally free and was no longer enslaved.
What happened to Dred Scott’s wife?
Dred Scott, a black slave, and his wife had once belonged to army surgeon John Emerson, who had bought him from the Peter Blow family of St. Louis. After Emerson died, the Blows apparently helped Scott sue Emerson’s widow for his freedom, but lost the case in state court. ADVERTISEMENT. Thanks for watching!
What did William Scott say about slavery in Missouri?
The newly elected proslavery justice, William Scott, wrote the decision, arguing that states like Missouri must have the power to refuse to enforce the laws of other states. Thus, regardless of wherever else Scott had been with his master, slavery was legal in Missouri.
How did the Missouri Compromise affect Dred Scott?
Though the Missouri Compromise was a deeply controversial piece of legislation that upset anti-slavery abolitionists, pro-slavery southerners, and everyone in between, it was still very much in effect when Dred Scott moved to the then slave state of Missouri in the 1830s.
What was Dred Scott's main reason for suing Mrs Emerson?
Scott sued Mrs. Emerson for “false imprisonment” and battery. Scott argued that he was being held illegally because he had become a free man as soon as he had lived in a free state. He claimed he was taken to a slave state against his will.
What did the Dred Scott decision say about slavery and slaves?
The Dred Scott decision was the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on March 6, 1857, that having lived in a free state and territory did not entitle an enslaved person, Dred Scott, to his freedom. In essence, the decision argued that, as someone's property, Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in a federal court.
What did Dred Scott's lawyers argue?
Scott's lawyers used an argument based on the fact the defendant—Sanford—and the plaintiff were from different states, shifting the focus of the case to whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction and whether or not Scott was a citizen of the United States.
Why does Chief Justice Taney believe that Dred Scott is not a citizen of the United States why is this issue important for the case?
Why is this issue important for the case? Chief Justice Taney believes that Dred Scott is not a citizen because the language used in the Constitution shows that enslaved people were not intended to be citizens.
What argument did Scott used to sue for his freedom?
In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued his master's widow for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived as a resident of a free state and territory. He won his suit in a lower court, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision.
Facts of The Case
Dred Scott, the plaintiff in the case, was an enslaved man and his enslaver was John Emerson of Missouri. In 1843, Emerson took Scott from Missouri, a pro-slavery state, to the Louisiana Territory, where enslavement had been banned by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. When Emerson later brought him back to Miss…
Constitutional Issues
- In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court faced two questions. First, were enslaved people and their descendants considered American citizens under the U.S. Constitution? Secondly, if enslaved people and their descendants were not American citizens, were they qualified to file suit in American courts in the context of Article III of the Constitution?
The Arguments
- The case of Dred Scott v. Sandford was first heard by the Supreme Court on February 11–14, 1856, and reargued on December 15–18, 1856. Dred Scott’s lawyers reiterated their earlier argument that because he and his family had resided in the Louisiana territory, Scott was legally free and was no longer enslaved. Lawyers for Sanford countered that the...
Majority Opinion
- The Supreme Court announced its 7-2 decision against Dred Scott on March 6, 1857. In the Court’s majority opinion, Chief Justice Taney wrote that enslaved people “are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can, therefore, claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizen…
Dissenting Opinion
- Justice Benjamin R. Curtis and John McLean wrote dissenting opinions. Justice Curtis objected to the accuracy of the majority’s historical data, noting that Black men were allowed to vote in five of the thirteen states of the Union at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. Justice Curtis wrote that this made Black men citizens of both their states and of the United States. To argue t…
The Impact
- Coming at a time when a majority of the justices came from pro-slavery states, the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford was one of the most controversial and highly criticized in the Supreme Court’s history. Issued just two days after pro-slavery President James Buchanan took office, the Dred Scott decision fueled the growing national divisiveness that led to the Civil War. Supporters of e…
Sources and Further Reference
- Primary Documents in American History: Dred Scott v. Sandford U.S. Library of Congress.
- Missouri's Dred Scott Case, 1846-1857. Missouri State Archives.
- Introduction to the court opinion on the Dred Scott case U.S. Department of State.
- Vishneski, John S. III. What the Court Decided in Dred Scott v. Sandford. American Journal of Legal History. (1988).
Popular Posts:
- 1. how can a lawyer go to jail
- 2. lawyer who did not 60 minutes
- 3. when can a lawyer communicate with someone who already has a lawyer?
- 4. how to tax lawyer
- 5. oklahoma how to open a dispensary lawyer
- 6. how to search if a lawyer has a bar
- 7. who is the other lawyer in to kill a mockingbird
- 8. how much is a lawyer usually?
- 9. what to do when lawyer comes on to you
- 10. family law in two locations where do i get a lawyer