Scott+v.+Sanford

**Date of Hearing**
Argued: February 11 1856 Decided: March 6, 1857

Chief **Justice Roger Taney**
Rodger B. Taney was born March 15, 1836-Died October 12, 1864. He was the 5th chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Taney was a Jacksonian (Southern) Democrat (Greater Rights for the common man) when he was appointed Chief Justice. He was most remembered for his opinion that ruled African Americans were not part of the original community of Citizens.

===

===

**Relevant Documents:**
Wisconson Enabling Act - Made slavery illegal in the __**wisconson**__ territory. Northwest Ordinance - Prohibited slavery in all states in the Northwest territorty. Missouri Comprimise - Stated that all states north of Missouri would be "free" states, and all states south would be "slave" states. Fifth Amendment to the Constitution- This amendment stated that no man's property can be taken from him without due process.

**Summary:**
A slave named Dred Scott was bought in Missouri, a slave state, by John Sanford and __wass__ taken to live in Illinois and Wisconsin which were free territories. He lived there and worked for Sanford over the course of two years. Sanford sued for his freedom saying that since he lived on free soil for an extended period of time, he should be a free man. He argued this under several documents including the Missouri Compromise and Northwest Ordinance. Sanford argued that since he bought Scott, Scott was his property and the government couldn't take Scott away without due process. This caused the Supreme Court to rule the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. After five years, his case was taken to the __supreme court__. The court ruled in favor of Sanford. They said that the government couldn't take away Sanford's property by the fifth amendment. They also ruled that you must be a citzen of a state to be connsidered a "free man". But the court said that people of african descent were never citizens of the United States. In order to be a citizen of a state, you had to be a citizen of the United States. ** Give the reader a time perspective -- when was this happening (besides 1857)? **

**Main Issue(s):**

 * 1) Are people of African-American descent brought into the United States to be held as slaves, United States citezens protected by the Constitution? **What if the slave was born in America instead of having been brought here?**
 * 2) Is Dred Scott even allowed to sue in federal court?
 * 3) Can __congress__ limit and regulate slavery in the Territories?
 * 4) Was Dred Scott considered property of Sanford and if so, could the government take away Sanford's property away without due process?

**Decision of the Court:**
The court voted in favor of Sanford. 7-2

**Who Voted What:**
Taney, Wane, Catron, Daniel, Nelson, Grier, and Campbell all voted in concurrence. McLean and Curtis were the only justices to vote in dissent. Chief Justice Taney argued that Dred Scott was a slave, and under Articles III and IV, argued Taney, no one but a citizen of the United States could be a citizen of a state, and that only Congress could confer national citizenship. Taney came to the conclusion that no decedent of an American slave had ever been a citizen for Article III purposes. The Court then held the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, hoping to end the slavery question once and for all. **Explain the rationale for this part of the ruling.** The most senior member of the court, John McLean, voted in dissent. He and Benjamin Curtis were the only anti-slavery justices on the Supreme Court at the time. **How did they disagree/ what was their rationale for their dissent??** ===

===

**Members of the Court at the time:**

 * Chief Justice Roger Taney - 21st Year
 * James M. Wayne - 22nd Year
 * John McLean - 27th Year
 * John Catron - 20th Year
 * Peter Daniel - 16th Year
 * Samuel Nelson - 12th Year
 * Robert Grier - 11th Year
 * Benjamin Curtis - 6th Year
 * John Campbell - 4th Year

Personal Opinion:
I believe that the court was wrong in their ruling. Dred Scott should have been considered a United States citizen and should have been allowed to sue Sanford for his freedom. However, by the letter of the law they techinically made the right decision, but I believe that the government at the time was very racist so the law was never in Scott's favor.

What if?
What if this case had been ruled in favor of Dred Scott? Well, some consider this case to be the catalyst that led to the __civil war__ and almost all historians agree that it affected the timing of the southern states succession. Had this case not caused the controversy it did, due to its ruling, than slavery may never have been taken care of in the __south__. Also, if this case had been ruled in favor of Scott, then it would have been much easier for slaves to be freed because they would just have to sneak across the border to a free state. ===

===

**Bibliography:**
"Northwest Ordinance." //Digital History//. Web. 3 Feb. 2012. [].

"Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)." //Infoplease: Encyclopedia, Almanac, Atlas, Biographies, Dictionary, Thesaurus. Free Online Reference, Research & Homework Help. — Infoplease.com//. Web. 3 Feb. 2012. [].

"Past U.S. Supreme Court Members — Infoplease.com." //Infoplease: Encyclopedia, Almanac, Atlas, Biographies, Dictionary, Thesaurus. Free Online Reference, Research & Homework Help. — Infoplease.com//. Web. 3 Feb. 2012. [].

 "Dred Scott v. Sandford | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law | A Multimedia Archive of the Supreme Court of the United States. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. [|.]

"Dred Scott v. Sandford." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford >.

"Dred Scott Case." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. < http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html >.

**6/7 - Biblio == alphabetize it!** **24/28 Content -- for the most part, not bad, but the last two parts (opinion and what if) could be a lot stronger.** **4.5/5 Organization -- looks good, but watch out for misspelled and uncapitalized words __underlined__**

**34.5/40 total**