Justin Fortuny
9/29/16
Mrs. Perez
Period 8
Dred Scott v. Sandford

Dred Scott v. Sandford was in 1856-1857. This was when the Supreme Court stated that African Americans were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. During this time, the Court also ruled that Congress lacked the power to ban slavery on U.S. territories. After, the Court declared that the rights of slave owners were protected by the Fifth Amendment because slaves were seen as property. This means that slaves were seen as objects and something you can buy with money.

This problem began in 1833, when Dr. John Emerson bought Dred Scott and eventually moved Scott to a base in the Wisconsin Territory. Slavery was banned in the territory near the Missouri Compromise. Scott lived there for the next four years. He hired himself out for work during the long stretches when Emerson was away. During 1840, Scott, his wife, and their children moved to Louisiana and then to St. Louis with Emerson. Emerson died in 184.This left the Scott family to his wife (Eliza Irene Sanford). In 1846, after years of laboring, the Scotts wanted to buy their freedom from Sanford, but she refused. Dred Scott then sued Sanford in a state court, arguing that he was legally free because he …show more content…
Sandford showed rising issues between the North and South part of America. Although, the Missouri Compromise had already been revoked prior to the case, people that were pro-slavery had the chance to expand slavery to everyone. Antislavery forces were angered by the decision, giving more power to the newly formed Republican Party and helping grow violence between slaveowners and abolitionists. Following the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress passed, and the states ratified, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, all of which directly overturned the Dred Scott decision. Nowadays, all people born or naturalized in the United States are American citizens who can sew in federal