African-American History
Slavery

Who took the Scott vs Sanford case to court?

123

Top Answer
User Avatar
Wiki User
2009-09-28 02:20:27
2009-09-28 02:20:27

Dred Scott

1
๐Ÿ™
0
๐Ÿคจ
0
๐Ÿ˜ฎ
0
๐Ÿ˜‚
0

Related Questions

User Avatar

It took place in 1857, in Missouri.

User Avatar

The US Supreme Court rendered its decision on the Dred Scott v Sandford, (1857) case on March 6, 1857, two days after President James Buchanan took office.Case Citation:Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393 (1857)

User Avatar

The finding in the Dred Scott vs Sanford case was tha when a slave master took a slave tho the north, the slave was notautomaticaly freed and furthermore that slaves were not people, but property.

User Avatar

The Dred Scott case took about eleven years to be resolved. The case began in Missouri in 1846.

User Avatar

The US Supreme Court rendered its decision on the Dred Scott v Sandford, (1857) case on March 6, 1857, two days after President James Buchanan took office.

User Avatar

Dred Scott sued his owners for freedom when they took him to the Northern states. The Supreme Court ruled that he did not have the right to sue whether he was a slave or free. That decision was overturned nine years later.

User Avatar

The court case that brought about the 27th Amendment was Dillon v. Gloss. This court case took place in 1921. There was a court case that challenged this Amendment in 1992. That court case involved Boehner v. Anderson.

User Avatar

Dred Scott went to court 3 times. 1st he went to Missouri Circuit court where he was granted his freedom. Then the Missouri reversed the decision an so he took it to federal court where it was ruled that he was still a sllave. lastly he took it to U.S. supreme court where he was also ruled to be a slave

User Avatar

can a civil action be took on a case that has been closed in juvenile court

User Avatar

Yep. The Dred Scott decision was all about how Dred Scott went with his slave owner up to a "free state" and stayed long enough to, technically, be free. He turned this into a court case and took it to the Supreme Court. They decided that he could never become a citizen because of his race, and could, therefore, never sue in court. The court justices thought in theory that slavery was protected by the constitution. (which it is absolutely not!) I hope this clears it up :]

User Avatar

Dred Scott was a slave. His owner took him outside the south and through states that did not allow slavery. These states had rules that any enslaved person brought into the state became free. Dred Scott sued to try to win his freedom.The Dred Scott case had a very broad and damaging outcome. The Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott, a negro, had no rights whatsoever. He was property, not a person or a citizen. He had no right to sue in federal court. Further, the court ruled that the federal government had no legal right to interfere with the institution of slavery. Slavery advocates were encouraged and began to make plans to expand slavery into all of the western territories and states. This created much of the tension that caused the Civil War.Quick FactsDred Scott was a slave who lived in the free territories of Illinois and Wisconsin before moving with his owner to the slave territory of Missouri. When his owner died he sued his owner's wife for his freedom. He claimed that since he had lived so many years on "free soil" that he deserved to have his freedom.Dred Scott and his family (except for his younger daughter, Lizzie) had lived for a significant time in "free" territory, which should have automatically guaranteed their right to emancipation under the "once free, always free" doctrine. Unfortunately, Scott didn't attempt to exercise this option until he and his family were living in Missouri, a slave-holding state.Scott attempted to purchase his family's freedom for $300, but Irene Emerson refused the offer, so Scott sued for their freedom in court, a strategy that had worked for certain other former slaves. The first case against Irene Emerson (Scott v. Emerson,(1847) was dismissed for lack of evidence; by the time the second case was tried (Scott v. Sanford, (1857), Emerson's brother, John Sanford had assumed responsibility for his sister's legal affairs (which is why his name is on the case instead of hers).The case citation is Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857)

User Avatar

The Dred Scott decision or Dred Scott v. Sandford, took place in 1857. His case was based on the fact that he and his wife Harriet Scott were slaves, but had lived in states and territories where slavery was illegal, including Illinois and Minnesota (which was then part of the Wisconsin Territory). Dred Scott lost the case when The United States Supreme Court ruled seven to two, on the grounds that he, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States, and that therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules.

User Avatar

He lived in the South. But he was the slave of an army doctor who was posted to the North and took Scott with him. At that stage, Scott could have sued for his freedom, and it would have been granted automatically. But he didn't apply until he was back in slave country. That was the legal complication that got his case referred to the Supreme Court.

User Avatar

Dred Scott is famous because he was a slave that sued for the freedom of his family and lost. The trial took place in 1857, and the case is known as Dred Scott vs. Sandford.

User Avatar

The murders took place in 1969 and the court procedure took place from 1970 to 1971.

User Avatar

Only if you took the necessary steps to make that possible in the case of a default. If you didn't you may need to sue the primary borrower in court. In any case, you are fully responsible for paying the loan.Only if you took the necessary steps to make that possible in the case of a default. If you didn't you may need to sue the primary borrower in court. In any case, you are fully responsible for paying the loan.Only if you took the necessary steps to make that possible in the case of a default. If you didn't you may need to sue the primary borrower in court. In any case, you are fully responsible for paying the loan.Only if you took the necessary steps to make that possible in the case of a default. If you didn't you may need to sue the primary borrower in court. In any case, you are fully responsible for paying the loan.

User Avatar

They didn't take him to court 'to win his freedom'. HE took THEM to court, to apply for his freedom on the basis that his previous owner (their deceased relative) had taken him on to free soil, where Scott would have been granted his freedom automatically, if he had applied at that time. The local courts had never dealt with a retrospective application of this kind, and that is how the case arrived at the Supreme Court.

User Avatar

Cushing and Moore took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. ... The case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who ... the Supreme Court to force the new Secretary of State James Madison to deliver.

User Avatar

member of the ACLU who took a case to the Supreme Court on the establishment of religion in state matters

User Avatar

The Golaknath case is officially known as Golaknath vs State Of Punjab. The Golaknath case took place in 1967 Indian in the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that Parliament could not decrease any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.

User Avatar

Generally the court in the district where the crime took place, or the court in the location where the suing party lives would hear the case. That being said, there are specialized courts for specialized purposes located in Washington, DC and around the country.

User Avatar

The 1898 Williams v Mississippi case ended with an indicted against Williams for murder. Williams took his case to the Supreme Court but it was unanimously rejected.

User Avatar

It said that a man's property was sacred, and slaves were classified as property. By the time of the Dred Scot case in 1857, the second assumption was being increasingly questioned, but the Supreme Court took it literally, and denied Scott his freedom.


Copyright ยฉ 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.