answersLogoWhite

0

Dred Scott, Plaintiff in Error v. John F. A. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857)

The short title is Scott v. Sandford, but the case is often referred to colloquially as "the Dred Scott case." Sandford is misspelled in the Supreme Court documents; the proper spelling is Sanford, without a d. This cannot be corrected, however.

User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago

What else can I help you with?

Continue Learning about General History

What was Dred Scott's wife's name?

Harriet Robinson


What was the name of the slave that lived in a free state and sued for his freedom?

Dred Scott.


How many siblings did Dred Scott have?

According to some accounts, Dred Scott had at least one brother who was sold at the same time Scott was. Some people believe the brother's name was Dred, and that the man we know as Dred Scott was really named Sam. The Missouri Historical Society does not substantiate this claim, however.Dred Scott may or may not have had full siblings, depending upon whether his parents were kept together or sold to different owners. Because African-Americans were considered property, rather than human beings, it was not unusual for slave owners to break up families by selling one or more of them to another "master."Unfortunately, whatever records may have existed about Dred Scott, his family of origin, or his early life are no longer extant.


What is a quick summary of the Dred Scott case?

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)


What did the Dred Scott Case mean?

The decision was a stunning blow against supporters of the abolition of slavery. The decision held that Blacks were not citizens of the US and lacked any standing to sue in court. It also declared that the congress could not constitutionally ban slavery, blacks could not sue in court, and that slaves (as property) could not be taken from their owners without due process. The court never overturned the dred Scott decision, but did declare in 1873 that the 14th amendment to the constitution had overruled parts of the dred Scott decision.