Scott v. Sanford - Case Study Example

Scott vs. Sanford The Dred vs. Sanford case brought the more intricate details of slavery to the forefront of the looming civil war in America. The fact of the case is that Dred Scott, an African-American slave from the slave state of Missouri had an opportunity to live in certain free states of America thanks in part to his owner/master U.S. Army surgeon Dr. John Emerson. He traveled with him from camp to camp and spent a length of time living with his master in certain slave free states such as Illinois and Wisconsin.

During this time, the slave owner made money off the labor of his slave by hiring him out to others in direct violation of the Missouri Compromise. Upon his owners return to Missouri, Dred was then sold to Sanford who became the defendant in this case. The basis for the suit was that according to Abolishonist lawyers, Dred and his wife had lived on free ground for a period of time, with his daughter even born in the free states and therefore, could no longer considered a slave and was in effect, a free man.

The main issue of this case was that Dred was asking the courts to decide as to whether he was no longer a slave and instead was not a citizen of the land and as such, should be accorded the same rights as a free man under the U.S. Constitution (Dred Scott v. Sanford, n.d.). Dred sued for his freedom in 1853 in the federal court of New York under the Diversity jurisdiction provided in article 3. section 2 of the U.S. constitution. Judge Robert William Wells who heard this case directed his jury to base the merits of the case on the Missouri law.

As per the facts of evidence, Dred lost. All because he failed to present a witness who could attest to the fact that he was indeed a slave for Sanford. As expected, a case of this magnitude at the time found its way to the U.S. Supreme Court where it was heard and decided upon by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney who was known as former slave owner in Maryland. It was his decision on this case that made Dred v. Sandford a highly precedential case since Judge Taneys decision effectively invalidated the Missouri Compromise (The Dredd Scott Decision, 1996).

In his courts decision, seven out of 9 judges declared that “no slave or descendant of a slave should be considered a citizen of America.” (The Dredd Scott Decision, 1996). As such, Dred had no right to sue an American citizen, nor sue for his freedom in the federal courts. He was in effect, still a slave. Taney declared that the U.S. Constitution explains that no man should be deprived of his property and as such Dred, being a slave was property. Therefore he (Dred Scott Case: The Supreme Court Decision, n.d.): “.

had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it." Even more troubling was that the decision of this court voided the Missouri Compromise by declaring that it was unconstitutional and Congress had no right to stop the new members states from engaging in slavery. Thus this case set a precedent about the ownership and freedom and slaves which further fueled the great debate that led to the American Civil War of the North and South. SourcesN.A. (n.d.). Dred scott case: the supreme court decision.

Historical Document. pbs.org. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.htmlN.A. (1996). The dred scott decision. The History Place: Abraham Lincoln. historyplace.com. Retrieved from http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/dred.htmN.A. (n.d.) Drd Scott v. sanford. Bloomberg Law. CaseBriefs. Retrieved from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/property/property-law-keyed-to- singer/property-in-people/dred-scott-v-sandford/