Griffin Honeycutt Block 2 October 29, 2013

 Official Name- Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford  The defendant’s name was actually Sanford, but was misspelled in the official documentation  Case was heard and decided in the year 1857  John F. A. Sanford was John Emerson's brother-in-law. John Emerson was Scott’s owner.

Public Policy at the time  Slavery was still legal in many parts of the country, as this case was prior to the Civil war and the 13 th Amendment. However, some states and areas were free, and Scott believed living in these areas also made him free.

Background to the case  In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, was purchased by John Emerson in Missouri and then moved to Minnesota, a free state.  Afterwards, he moved to Illinois, a free area, and then back to Missouri, where his owner died.  Scott sued the widow claiming that moving to a free area made him a free man. The case went to the Supreme Court.

Arguments of Dred Scott  Being taken to a free state granted him freedom  In many other states and Europe, a slave who legally travelled to a free area was automatically freed  Scott was born in the US, which under citizenship laws made him a citizen  Being in a free area and technically holding citizenship status should grant him freedom  He did not run away, but was brought legally into the state by his master

Arguments of John Sanford  African Americans were not citizens as defined by the Constitution, and therefore could not sue another citizen.  Bringing a slave into a free state did not make that slave free.

Amicus Curiae Briefs  There were no amicus curiae briefs filed.

The Decision  The majority opinion (7:2) was that he was not a free man.  Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in the Majority Opinion stated that Negroes were not meant to be considered citizens under the Constitution.  He also stated that since his owner was a citizen of Missouri, the laws of Missouri applied to Scott, and not the laws of Illinois

Precedents Created by the Case  African Americans were not citizens, whether they were free or not  A slave taken from a slave state to a free state back to a slave state is not freed  Part of the Missouri Compromise was declared unconstitutional- Congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories

Dissenting Opinions  Under American citizenship laws, Scott was considered a citizen, and therefore had the right to sue in court.  No laws in the territories gave anyone the power to own slaves, therefore slavery could not be exercised.

Long Term Effects on the Government  This case had no long term effects on public policy or the government as a whole. The precedents were only in place for three years.  Three years after this case was tried, the Civil War broke out, and at it’s conclusion, slavery was outlawed by the 13 th amendment. The 14 th amendment granted African American’s citizenship.  Many consider the case to be one of the catalysts of the Civil War

Key points  Slaves were not free even if they were taken into a free state or territory.  Majority ruled that Scott was not a free man.  Case had no long term affects on government.  Part of Missouri Compromise declared unconstitutional.

Bibliography  ed_scott_v_sandford#Tab=Overview ed_scott_v_sandford#Tab=Overview  ng_Arguments_in_the_Case ng_Arguments_in_the_Case  erpts_from_the_Majority_Opinion erpts_from_the_Majority_Opinion  erpts_from_the_Dissenting_Opinion erpts_from_the_Dissenting_Opinion  y_of_the_Decision y_of_the_Decision  ml ml