What was dred scott vs sanford case about

The political context surrounding slavery in the years leading up to the Dred Scott decision was one of compromise and sectional tensions. With the opening of Western territories, there was heightened debate between the North and South over the issue of slavery. Attempts to resolve the political tension included several compromises and acts. By , when Dred Scott made it to the Supreme Court, the Northern and Southern states already had a tenuous relationship.

In , while living in St. Louis, Scott made his legal claim to freedom. For many years Scott was the slave of Dr. John Emerson, an army surgeon who had taken him to live on military bases in the free state of Illinois and in Wisconsin Territory, before ending up in Missouri. Even though Scott and his family were living in a slave state at the time of their petition for freedom, Scott argued that they were entitled to their freedom because of their prior residences in free states. Because Scott waited until to submit his case, he may not have had the education or support necessary to recognize the opportunity to sue for freedom until he moved to St.

Once there, Scott reconnected with the son of his former master, Peter Blow, who provided him with the financial aid for his Missouri lawsuit and perhaps also encouraged him to sue for his freedom. In naming the case Dred Scott v. Sandford , the court accidentally misspelled John F. Sanford's name. Supreme Court. This appeal was more expensive than the Blows could afford, but Scott received additional help from a lawyer, Montgomery Blair, who agreed to take the case for free.

Blair was not an abolitionist, but he supported the Republican Party and opposed the spread of slavery into the Western territories or Northern states.

In the U. Supreme Court was heavily proslavery and pro-Democratic. Taney authored the majority opinion of the case, a decision enthusiastically supported and probably influenced by President-elect James Buchanan. The decision nullified the Missouri Compromise, which had provided a tenuous balance in slave and free states since This case was at the center of a political battle when Taney nullified the Missouri Compromise.

Though the Chief Justice believed that this decision would end the question of slavery for all time, instead it galvanized both sides. The decision allowed for slavery to grow into new territories. Afterwards, blood was shed over the disagreement on the Missouri-Kansas line. Furthermore, with this controversial decision, the North became increasingly agitated, writing against the decision in their newspapers, preaching sermons denouncing it, and causing the anger to grow beyond just the abolitionist movement.

Since the decision allowed for the spread of slavery into previously free states, white laborers could lose their work to slaves. As these tensions grew, the path to the Civil War was being cleared. Following the decision, New York, Ohio, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania state legislatures tried to pass legislation to oppose the Supreme Court decision.

This case was overturned with the passage of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Despite the negative decision, legal applications varied. In Chicago, four black men were arrested for stealing poultry. In this case, one witness was also black and therefore, refused to testify because he was not considered a person. Other cases were similarly argued. In another case, Thomas Howland, a black man, applied for a passport. The State Department rejected his application on the basis that he was not a citizen because of his race.

The new Republican Party gained traction with this decision. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates for the Illinois U. Senate seat in , Lincoln went as far as to assert that the country could not be divided on the issue of slavery. In the presidential election, Northerners came out strongly to vote for the Republican Party, culminating in the election of Abraham Lincoln.

Despite the Dred Scott decision not being a major cause of the Civil War, it influenced the events preceding the war, the succession of states, and problems within the Democratic Party. Scott's case lasted eleven years, from the initial filing of the petition, in , to the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Read through the sections below to find more about the key people, the proceedings, and the decisions involved the case at each stage.

The ruling found in favor of Sandford and left Scott and his family in slavery. Furthermore, the argument hinged on whether or not Scott could retain his freedom after returning to a slave state. During the course of the case, from to , the court received two new members, and the case had to be reheard. The final vote was , with dissenting Justice Hamilton Gamble arguing that taking a slave to a free state was an act of emancipation. Emerson was not in those territories under his own consent, since he was ordered there by the military.

In the St. Louis Circuit Court, a jury found for the plaintiffs, providing freedom for the Scotts. Testimony established the Scotts' residence in a free state and territory.

Attorneys Garland and Norris argued Dr. Emerson was not under state law in those states. Louis, Missouri —both slave states—where Peter ran a boarding house. After Blow died in , army surgeon Dr. John Emerson purchased Scott and eventually took him to Illinois, a free state, and then to Fort Snelling in Wisconsin Territory where the Missouri Compromise had outlawed slavery. There, Scott married Harriet Robinson, also enslaved, in a rare civil ceremony; her owner transferred ownership of Harriet to Emerson.

In late , Emerson returned to St. Louis but left Dred and Harriet Scott behind and hired them out. Emerson then moved to Louisiana , a slave state, where he met and married Eliza Irene Sandford in February ; Dred Scott soon joined them. In October , Emerson, his wife Irene and their enslaved workers returned to Wisconsin. After the army honorably discharged Emerson in , he and Irene returned to St. Louis with Scott and his family which now included two daughters , but they struggled to find success and soon moved to Iowa.

Louis to be hired out. She returned to St. Louis to live with her father and hired out Scott and his family. Scott tried multiple times to purchase his freedom from Irene, but she refused.

For unknown reasons, Dred and Harriet Scott never tried to run away or sue for freedom while living in or traveling through free states and territories. In April , Dred and Harriet filed separate lawsuits for freedom in the St. One statute allowed any person of any color to sue for wrongful enslavement. The other stated that any person taken to a free territory automatically became free and could not be re-enslaved upon returning to a slave state. Neither Dred nor Harriet Scott could read or write and they needed both logistical and financial support to plead their case.

They received it from their church, abolitionists and an unlikely source, the Blow family who had once owned them. Since Dred and Harriet Scott had lived in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory — both free domains — they hoped they had a persuasive case.

When they went to trial on June 30, , however, the court ruled against them on a technicality and the judge granted a retrial. The Scotts went to trial again in January and won their freedom. By this time, Irene had transferred Scott and his family to her brother, John Sandford although it was determined later that she retained ownership. On May 15, , the federal court heard Dred Scott v. Sandford and ruled against Scott, holding him and his family in slavery. The trial began on February 11, By this time, the case had gained notoriety and Scott received support from many abolitionists, including powerful politicians and high-profile attorneys.

But on March 6, , in the infamous Dred Scott decision , Scott lost his fight for freedom again. Taney became best known for writing the final majority opinion in Dred Scott v.