Peyton Waters and John McArthur 2A DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD(1857)

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Sectionalism What issues divided the country and the legislation that tried to keep the country together.

Advertisements

Ch 18 sec 3-4 I. Dred Scott decision Biggest Supreme Court ruling before the Civil War. Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that Scott was –Was not a citizen,

CHAPTER 16.3: THE DREDD SCOTT DECISION. FACTS 1.Dred Scott was a slave from Missouri. (MO) 2. Scott and his owner moved to Wisconsin for four years. 3.

Kansas-Nebraska Act Dred Scott Case Pages Workbook 88.

Dred Scott And The case for freedom By: Nate Widitor And The case for freedom By: Nate Widitor.

The Dred Scott Decision

II. Basis of Citizenship

Road to Civil War Challenges to Slavery p

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). Background: The Missouri Compromise 1803: U.S. purchases Louisiana Territory from France 1820: Compromise allows slavery.

Extending Rights to All present What documents and institutions protect the rights of Americans?

Slavery during the time of Civil War. Political Effects on slaves and free blacks 1. Missouri Compromise – Missouri entered the Union as a slave state.

 Dred Scott v. J. A. Sanford (1857).   Who was Dred Scott?  Events Affecting Dred Scott’s fate  Timeline of Events  The Two Sides of the Issue 

A Nation Divided Political Divisions Chapter 15, Section 3 Pages

.  The Republicans quickly became a powerful force in politics.  The congressional elections of 1854 were held only months after the party was founded.

Jump Start List in order, starting with the event that occurred first, the following events: ‘Bleeding’ Kansas Lincoln’s ‘House Divided’ Speech Missouri.

The Court ruled that Scott's "sojourn" of two years to Illinois and the Northwest Territory did not make him free once he returned to Missouri.

The Civil War and the Constitution Unit 3, Lesson 17.

II. Basis of Citizenship. A. National Citizenship Founders let states decide who was a citizen Naturalization – Legal process by which a person is granted.

Griffin Honeycutt Block 2 October 29,  Official Name- Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford  The defendant’s name was actually Sanford, but was misspelled.

Missouri wants to become a state…. (so what’s the problem? ) 21.2  Missouri applied for statehood with Alabama. The Northwest Ordinance (which banned.

By Alexander M. Barker. Born as a slave in the late 1700s Owned by the Blow family Parents are unknown Lived in Southampton County, VA Moved to Alabama;

Bell Work In your notebooks, respond to the prompt: How can differences among students affect the school? What kinds of differences could lead to problems.

Chapter 15, Section 3 Challenges to Slavery.

By: Mireina Barrios. Dred Scott and Roger B. Taney Dred Scott, a slave who had his freedom at Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving.

Legality of Slavery Prior to the Civil War.

The Civil Rights Movement

Dred Scott v Sandford Facts of the Case: Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) and in an area of.

DRED SCOTT CASE JESSI PALKOVIC - JACKSON STEPHENS - WILLIAM UNMISIG POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY on the.

APUSH – Spiconardi.   In the 1830s, Dred Scott, a slave, accompanied his owner from Missouri to Illinois and later the territory of Wisconsin  Scott.

LEHHS FOCUS: Lawyer Reconstruction to the Rise of Railroads.

Supreme Court Cases Setting the Precedent. John Marshall Helped make the Supreme Court the powerful institution it is today Presided over several important.

Lesson 18: The Union in Peril part 7

Dred Scott Decision (1857).

Deaton US History.   What Rights do you have as a citizen? Citizen Rights.

APUSH Review: Dred Scott v. Sanford Everything You Need to Know About Dred Scott v. Sanford To Succeed In APUSH

Dred Scott v. Sandford By Chloe Sturges. Overview Dred Scott, a slave in the 1800s, was taken out of Missouri, a slave state, by his owner John Emerson.

FIRST THINGS FIRST Why is slavery wrong?.

11.6 Roger B. Taney, Dred Scott v. Sanford Vanessa Valenzuela & Brianna Beas Period. 5.

Dred Scott V. Sanford 1858 Julien Mercier and Kendal Kulp.

The Road to Disunion The Dred Scott Decision. Focus Question: What role do the Courts play in national politics?

By: Mireina Barrios. Dred Scott and Roger B. Taney Dred Scott, a slave who had his freedom at Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving.

Back to the 1850’s… Law in the 1850’s. Rights of African Americans Still the Fugitive Slave Act Whether free or slave you could NOT be citizen Still segregation.

Chapter 7 Section 1 Changing the Law of the Land.

Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) 1854 Law that allowed for popular sovereignty in the Kansas and Nebraska Territories Devised by the “Little Giant” Stephen Douglas.

Dred Scott.  I can explain how the Dred Scott Court decision impacted African Americans during the time before the Civil War.

Ch:14 The Nation Divided :3 The Crisis Deepens.

WhoA Missouri slave What When Where Why Concept Development: Dredd Scott was a slave who argued for his freedom to the Supreme Court. Dredd Scott vs. Sanford.

21.6 & 21.7: The Dred Scott Case & Decision Page

 Dred Scott was a slave.  He had lived in a free territory with his owner.  His owner moved back into a slave state.  While there, the.

Political Divisions Chapter 15, Section 3.

Chapter 14 The Nation Divided Section 3: The Crisis Deepens

Dred Scott Decision 1857.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Dred Scott Presentation created by Robert Martinez

Opener – Copy into Notebook pp. 84

Background: Who was Dred Scott?

Dred Scott v. Sanford.

FOA 2/29/16 1. What did the Kansas-Nebraska Act actually do?

1850s - Key events leading to war

The Causes of the Civil War

The Compromise Missouri Compromise (1820)

Dred Scott Decision Scott was not a citizen, could not sue

Political Divisions Chapter 18 - Section 3.

And The case for freedom

8X Tuesday Objective: Describe political developments in the US that led to Civil War. Agenda: Do Now: Explain the rise of the Republican Party.

Dred Scott Decision (1857).

Presentation transcript:

Peyton Waters and John McArthur 2A DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD(1857)

PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT Plaintiff- Dred Scott Defendant- Sandford

FACTS Controversy began in A surgeon purchased a slave and moved him to the Wisconsin Territory. Slavery was banned in this area due to the Missouri Compromise.

JURISDICTION The Supreme court had jurisdiction. African Americans could not sue in a federal court because they were not citizens of the United States.

APPEALED? This case appealed to the Supreme Court because Dred Scott could not sue in federal court because of his citizenship but he could in a Supreme Court.

RULING 7 votes for Sandford; in favor 2 votes for Dred Scott Dred Scott lost because he was not a US citizen so he couldn’t take his case to a federal court, so he remained a slave. Although Dred Scott became free once entering Illinois and Wisconsin, depriving someone without compensation for taking his property violated the 5 th amendment, which proves that Dred Scott is still a slave.

LANDMARK COURT CASE It was a landmark court case. The case couldn’t be viewed in the federal court. Dred Scott tried to get it appealed in the Supreme Court.

IMPACT This case drew a clear line of how the government stood on the issue of slavery, and further inflamed passions surrounding an already divisive topic with American Politics.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Argument of the case: Dred Scott became free once entering Illinois and Wisconsin, depriving someone without compensation for taking his property violated the 5 th amendment, which proves that Dred Scott is still a slave. The Supreme Court, in an infamous opinion written by Chief Taney, ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to take Scott's case because Scott was, or at least had been, a slave.

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE Dred Scott was purchased by Sandford as a slave outside of the United States, making him not a US citizen. When he was brought into the Wisconsin Territory it was made clear that slavery was banned, so he tried to sue Sandford. Being that you can’t sue in a federal court system, his case was overlooked, giving Sandford the votes.