Dred Scott vs John Sandford (the United States) Essay

The Scott vs. Sandford matter was an extremely historical event in the join States because this was the first time a buckle down tried to serve his owner for his put outdom. Like every other judiciary lawsuit in the U.S. there was the Defendant, the Plaintiff, and the Judge. The issue was brought to court by the plaintiff, Dred Scott, a striver with a wife and two daughters, who argued that his service for his first owner, Dr. Emerson, in Illinois, a enjoin from which knuckle downry has been excluded by the Missouri Compromise, make him a innocent humanity with full experts as any other American citizen. But Dred didnt stay in Illinois, he returned with his owner, Dr. Emerson, to Missouri where Plaintiff was sold to Sandford, the defendant in this case. Dred sued Sandford for his freedom, claiming to be a citizen of the United States. John Sandford, a hard worker owner in the 1800s was in any case accused of beating his slave family for no reason and depriving Dred and his family of their liberty Dred considering himself a citizen of the United States. The third grave person in this case was the Chief Justice, which was judge Roger B. Taney.Both sides had laws to prickle their sides. Missouri for example has laws banning slavery in their state, so Dred Scott is basing his case on that detail. He also sued the United States for his freedom, claiming to be a citizen of Missouri, base on having obtained freedom by living there, in a free state, for a long period of time. In court, Sandford which was represented by The United States, denied the violent actions and said that he did not beat his slaves he righteous handled them in a firm but gentle way. He also argued Dred is still a slave because he was born and bought in the southwestern and was considered space. Since he was moved as property to the North his status of property couldnt change. Another problem Dred had to face because he was considered property was the fact that he couldnt bri ng issues to court.Based on the way they were intellection back then, this whole case shouldnt even exist in the first place. The important issue of the case was if it was possible for a slave to be considered a citizen because he lived in a free state. If he was still considered a slave, slavery could exist in the north, where they didnt play slavery, as long as the slave was born and bought in the south, where they were encouraging and still practicing slavery. In the Constitution it says that every citizen has the right to sue in court so another reason why this was such a big decision was that the Supreme Court had to decide ifCongress had the index number to decide if a black man was a citizen.Did Congress eat the power to prohibit slavery? No. Can a slave be considered a citizen and as such become entitled to all in all the rights, privileges and immunities granted to citizens under the United States Constitution? No, and Dred did not become free by going into a state, w hich prohibited slavery. Therefore the Supreme court decided that Sandford was not guilty and that Scott, as a slave, had no right to sue his owner since it was his property. The court ended up having a vote 7-2 against Dred Scott implying that he was not a U.S. citizen. The decision the Supreme Court made was a violation of the Missouri Compromise, but their reasoning was that they said that it was unconstitutional. That caused fury in the North, which eventually led to the Civil War. This is the the reason why this case is also called the Case which started the Civil War.