Dred Scott Case Summary

Dred Scott was an African American slave who worked for Dr. John Emerson starting in 1834, whom was a United States surgeon for the army. Scott was moved by his master to a free state from a slave state then to Fort Snelling, which slavery was forbid by the Missouri Compromise. In the midst of that, Scott got married in Fort Snelling before he left there to go back home with his master in 1838. Dred Scott had a family, a wife and two children. For the better for his family, Scott sued the widow of John Emerson in 1846. The claim to his lawsuit was that he lived in a free state and territory which should have put an end to his enslavement. He won his lawsuit but then it was altered by the Missouri Supreme Court, making it a loss for him. Dred Scott’s lawyers then took the case …show more content…
Emerson’s brother, J. F. A. Sanford, was the legal supervisor over her property, the federal court said “okay” to move forward with the case. Yet again, the decisions that were made didn’t work out in Scott’s favor. In 1857, the court, altogether, decided to forget the question of the Missouri Compromise and STILL decide against Dred Scott coming to the conclusion that Scott was still a slave even though he lived in a free state before. When John McLean and Benjamin R. Curtis decided to state their opinions on the case, the southern members of the court tried to renege on their decision and then finally decided to consider the question of the Missouri Compromise territories. They made a decision in the Scott v. Sanford case that there was no power that banned slavery in the territories. Roger B. Taney announced the opinion that it wasn’t consistent with the Constitution. According to InfoPlease, “Three of the justices also held that a black “whose ancestors….were sold as slaves” was not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in the court.” The decision by the court deemed the dispute between the North and South deeper than what it had already

Show More