He was a slave whose owner had taken him to live in a free state for a time, before they returned to slave country.
When his owner died, he was left, as property, to the dead man's family. Scott tried to sue for his freedom on the 'Once free, always free' principle, but was told he should have applied while he was living on free soil.
He appealed against this judgment, but the local judges had never dealt with this kind of application before, and it ended up in the Supreme Court.
This court, under the elderly Chief Justice, Roger Taney, delivered an astonishing verdict - that slavery was legal in every state of the Union, because the Founding Fathers had declared that a man's property (including his slaves) was sacred.
This divided the nation even more deeply, and brought war closer.
He didn't. John Sanford won the case when Chief Justice Roger Taney stated slaves were property under the Fifth Amendment "Takings Clause," not citizens of any state or the United States. The Court's decision upheld the practice of slavery.
After the case was over, Dred Scott and his family were transferred to Taylor Blow, son of Scott's original "owner." Blow legally emancipated the family by manumission (a court procedure).
Case Citation:
Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393 (1857)
dred scott brought up the case if african americans and descendents of slaves were protected by the constitution. the court ruled that anyone of african american descent and slaves were not us citizens and not protected by the constitution. this case was bound to fail because dred scott was african american and at the time not even a person so there was no reason for the court to support him. saves didnt have any rights, they had just about as much rights as a door and couldn't do any thing and were seen as property.
Dred Scott was a slave. When his owner moved to a free state and died, Scott argued that he should be free. He lost the case.
The slave's name was Dred Scott
The Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sanford did not decide if Dred Scott was a slave or not, but that slaves (and their descendants) could not be counted as US citizens and had no right to sue in court.
in the Washington D.C. Supreme Court
That Scott had no right to argue in court
Dred Scott
The Supreme Court met in Washington, D.C. when it decided the Dred Scott case. It has met in Washington for every case since February 1801.
supreme court of Missouri
The Dred Scott case!!
The ruling in the Dred Scott case allowed slave owners to take their slaves with them into the Western territories of the United States.
The ruling in the Dred Scott case allowed slave owners to take their slaves with them into the Western territories of the United States.
none
Dred Scott case