Dred Scott V. Sandford Summary

The court case Dred Scott vs. Sanford — 1856 to 1857 — was vital regarding the lives of enslaved or non-liberated African Americans. The outcome of this trial changed the perspective of slaves all across the United States. Rights concerning liberated and enslaved Americans from Africa were declared and enforced in this case. In 1833, John Emerson — a medical surgen of the US Army — purchased a slaved named Dred Scott.

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

Dred Scott impact of slavery Dred Scott impacted the citizens of the United States because he fought for his freedom, he went to trial to sue for his freedom, he impacted the citizens of all African Americans throughout the United States. Scott’s case influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican party. Lincoln reacted with disgust to the ruling and spurred to political actions. Lincoln said “A house divided into itself cannot stand.’... this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.”

Court, 1857) 1. Facts: -Dred Scott was a slave taken by his new owner, Dr. Emerson to Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. -This all happened during the time the Missouri Compromise was considered lawful. -When Scott was permitted to marry Harriet Robinson, later the two went to live with Dr. Emerson and his wife.

The case of People v. Smith in the Supreme Court of Michigan was a landmark case for the state. With the court determining its holdings on the lower trial courts sentencing guidelines and practices concerning the use of juvenile criminal records in adult criminal cases (People v. Smith, 437 Mich. 293 (1991)). The State of Michigan did file an appeal to the Supreme Court of Michigan concerning the decision by the Lower Court of Appeals in the case of Ricky Smith. The lower court did uphold the conviction of Smith, but did overturn his sentence and remanded him to a new sentencing hearing. The court viewed the use of his juvenile criminal record to violate Michigan state law.

In 1847 Dred Scott sued his slave owners widow for his freedom. Scott’s argument was that since he had previously been a residence of the free state of Illinois he was a free man. Scott eventually lost the case when, in 1857, it was brought to the Supreme Court who ruled in a 7-2 majority against Scott. The court stated that due to the fact that Scott was of African descent he could not be an American citizen, and therefore not sue in federal courts. The court also ruled that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional, effectively allowing slavery in all states and territories.

To first understand why Mr. Dred Scott decided to sue for his freedom, we have to understand the prelude to his story. Even before Dred Scott was born a case in London was buzzing that would emancipate slaves and some historians believe the case contributed to increasing colonial support for separatism in the Thirteen Colonies of British North America, by parties on both sides of the slavery question who wanted to establish independent government and law (Britannica). The case was Somerset v. Stewart and it has been deemed one of the most important legal actions in the history of the antislavery movement (Weiner 71). The facts of the case were that James Somerset was a slave of Charles Stewart, an officer in the British colony of Boston in

Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri, but from 1833-1843, he lived in places where slavery was illegal. When Scott returned to Missouri, he believed that because he lived in free territory, he was a free man. He sued without success in Missouri courts. Scott’s master said that Dred Scott couldn’t be a citizen because of Article III of the Constitution. In the end, Dred Scott lost and had to return to slavery.

Research Paper Quiz The topic that I have chosen explains why gerrymandering should be illegal. Gerrymandering is the process of a state having the ability to redraw the voting district. In turn, this can give the party in control of that state an advantage over the other party by redrawing the district in their favor. I picked this topic, because I find it ridiculous that many states have the ability to move where your vote counts for their own agenda, and this makes it difficult for minorities in voting districts to be properly represented and allows for the party to maintain control of the house. Write a couple paragraphs explaining the court cases you picked and why you picked them:

1.) How did the Dread Scott decision change the political landscape of the United States? How did it gainsay the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the 1850 Compromise? The Dread Scott decision change the political landscape because it impacted on the political party system. It shattered the regional peace and party unity.