Dred Scott v. Sanford

In 1857 in Missouri, Dred Scott sued his master for his freedom claiming that because they had lived in Illinois, a free state, for ten years he was now a free man. The court came to the conclusion that 1. Dred Scott was a slave and slaves were not and could not become citizens of the United States therefor he had no right to sue in the first place 2. Slaves were property and the 5th amendment prohibits Congress from taking it away without just compensation 3.  Therefor the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and slavery was allowed anywhere in the United States.

In 1857, the country is building towards an all out civil war, so obviously the issue is much bigger than whether or not this one person is a slave. It is a culmination of years of trying to keep the balance of power between slave and free equal, the upcoming election, the out cry of the abolitionists, and the general future of slavery in the United States.
The plaintiff (Dred Scott) believes that because he and his master resided on free soil, he should now be a free man. He also got married with his masters consent during the ten year period where they were in Illinois, a right that is not usually allotted to slaves, which also contributes to his argument. The defendant maintained that no pureblood decedent of African decent could be a citizen. 

Scott v. Sandford was not Scott's first attempt at winning his freedom, there were two cases that led up to it. The first attempt was dismissed because of a technicality before the court even made a decision. In the second, Scott v. Emerson, the jury found Scott and his family legally free. Emerson appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court who ruled that the Scotts still slaves and that they should have sued for freedom when they were still in the free state. Finally that leads to Scott v. Sanford where Scott sues again, but this time in federal court.

The Supreme Court was split many different ways. One one hand, the conservatives dominated the court, 7-2. On the other hand, there were 5 southern judges and 4 northern judges.

The majority opinion argued that Dred Scott was still a slave because he was a decedent of Africans and therefor never was nor ever will be a citizen of the United States and therefor does not have the right to sue in the first place. In addition the fifth amendment prohibits Congress from depriving people of their property and because of this slavery cannot be illegal in any state, making the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. The minority opinion argued that the Missouri Compromise overruled any pervious status and that when Dred Scott entered Illinois he was not longer a slave. The majorities won and Dred Scott and his family remained enslaved until their master sold them.

No, I do not agree with the decision. Obviously, looking back, Dred Scott should have been free not because of any law or compromise but because he was a human being. However in terms of the actual case, there had been precedents set by courts such as Somersett v. Stewart, Rachel v. Walker, and Winny v. Whitesides that stated that Dred Scott should have been free once they stepped over the Mason Dixon line. The Missouri Compromise had been used for the last thirty years to preserve the balance of power between free and slave. The Dred Scott decision was the first time since Marburry v. Madison that an act of Congress was deemed unconstitutional. The Supreme Court just overturned far too many years of precent. Some historians maintain that the Dred Scott decision actually started the Civil War.