Dred Scott vs. Sandford

How cruel would it be to live in a world where no blacks, free of slavery or not, could claim citizenship of the United States? Well, in this case, that's exactly what the main issue was for slave Dred Scott.

After discussing several topics about slavery in my First Year Seminar class, we were asked to research one of the most controversial court cases in the U.S. known as the Dred Scott vs. Sandford case in March 1857. What I discovered during my research left me astounded.

So what caused the Dredd Scott vs. Sandford case? It first started when Dred Scott himself argued that "residence in free territory made him a free man" (Dred Scott v. Sandford 1). In other words, the court case took place in the state of Missouri, and in Missouri slavery was prohibited.

The legal issue at this case is whether Dred Scott was even a slave or a free slave. The results turn out that he indeed was a slave. From 1833 to 1843 Dred Scott was property of slave owner John Emerson. Therefore, the court "reached the conclusion that no person descended from an American slave had ever been a citizen for Article III purposes. The Court then held the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional" (Dred Scott v. Sandford 1). Furthermore, Dred Scott sued the court unsuccessfully for his freedom The case also began to rise to dispute since the court's decision "outraged abolitionists and heightened North-South tensions" (History.com Staff 1).

So what do you think? Do you think Dred Scott, or all slaves for that matter, should've gained citizenship or freedom?

Works cited:

-"Dred Scott v. Sandford." Oyez, 20 Mar. 2018, www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393.

-History.com Staff. “Dred Scott Decision.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 2009, www.history.com/topics/black-history/dred-scott-case.