# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v. Sanford Trial: What does this case mean for African Americans?

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v. Sanford Trial: What does this case mean for African Americans?

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott, an enslaved man by Dr. Emerson from Missouri filed a claim for his freedom. Dr. Emerson took Scott with him to serve as a body servant at a military post in Rock Island, Illinois. Under the Constitution of Illinois at the time, slavery was prohibited. Therefore, Dred Scott deserved his right to freedom in the state. He claimed for him and his wife that they were free citizens and had every right to desert from their master. Unfortunately, the Missouri court ruled against Scott's claim, resulting in him appealing to the United States Supreme Court declaring freedom.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. In Taney's final ruling, it was stated that all people of African descent, free or enslaved, were not United States citizens. This means that they had to right to sue in federal court. This affected all African-Americans because if someone illegally took place, they were not able to report it and file a claim for justice. During this case, African-Americans were completely dehumanized and wronged, sadly, this was customary behavior and these disrespectful feelings were fairly mutual with white people all throughout the south.

Written By: London Merriweather

# data[].attributes.body
An enslaved man, named Dred Scott, was purchased by Dr. Emerson. John Emerson worked as a surgeon for the U.S. Army and migrated a lot. When he was moved to a different area, Dr. Emerson brought his slaves (including Scott) with him. Emerson was reassigned at a post in Fort Snelling, Illinois where Dred Scott met his wife, who was also a slave.
Because of the Missouri compromise, Illinois was a free state at the time. This meant that slavery was illegal. Scott and his wife decided to try and become free. They argued that because they lived in an area of the U.S. where slavery was illegal, they should have the right to be citizens.  However, Supreme Court Justice Robert B. Taney claimed that Scott and his wife were not able to sue for their freedom because they were not citizens. He also claimed that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery, even in free states. As a result, Scott and his wife were not granted freedom from the court and were returned to Emerson's family as slaves.
Author: Lilly Williamson

# data[].attributes.body
An enslaved man going to the supreme court: how did this happen? Dred Scott was an enslaved man owned by Dr. Emerson, a surgeon for the U.S. army. Mr. Scott was brought to forts in Illinois and Minnesota and later returned to St. Louis. So why does all this matter? Simple, The Missouri Compromise.
The Missouri Compromise did a number of things, one of them "banning" slavery above the 36' parallel. Illinois and Minnesota are above this line. Mr. Scott argued that because he was willingly brought to these places, he was a free man. So what did the supreme court rule?
The Supreme Court's final ruling was simple, or so thought. They ruled that congress violated the constitution by banning slavery north of the 36'. Thus, slavery should have been legal and Dred Scott was still enslaved. Slaves were also "property" and the Fifth Amendment protects people's property. This ruling was a huge setback for African-Americans and Abolitionists. So that's what you should take away from the Dred Scott. Sandford case.

Author: Brayden Dmu.

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott an enslaved African American, was bought by a doctor, Dr. Emerson. He took Dred Scott to St. Louis, Missouri and  remained their for two years and met his(Dred) wife, also a slave at the time, on a trip to the Fort Snelling. Both posts of Fort Snelling prohibited slavery, and owners of Dred and his wife sold him to Sandford. This was start of the chance for freedom.

Both Dred and his wife made claims that they were upon voluntary return in Missouri where they would be free citizens. The Court denied, and responded with"that temporary residence in a Free State did not make them free in the state of Missouri, unless their owners had signified by some act and intention to free them from slavery by taking them into a free territory - which did not appear to be a fact in this case.
Dred appeals to United States Supreme Court.

Dred Scott stood his ground, but Chief Justice Roger B. Taney stated,"Dred Scott was still an enslaved person. As such, he was not a citizen and had no right to bring a lawsuit..., living on free soil did not make Scott free. A slave was property. The Fifth Amendment prohibited the taking of property without "due process."

This means for African Americans that their whole life doesn't matter to people because the law most of the time rules over people's understandings, emotions, view of the world in different perspectives.

Author: Alex Dunn

# data[].attributes.headline
The Ruling of Dred Scott v. Sandford Trial!

# data[].attributes.subject
The Ruling of Dred Scott v. Sandford Trial!

# data[].attributes.body
The Missouri Compromise was greatly influenced and impacted by Dred Scott's case. Scott was born in Missouri as a slave. Maine was declared a free state, and Missouri was accepted as a free state as a result of the Missouri Compromise. From 1833 to 1843, Scott lived in Illinois, a free state. Scott declared in a federal court in Missouri that living in a free territory would make him a free man. According to Chief Justice Taney, no black person could ever be free in America, especially if they were born into slavery.

Taney ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. He believed that any African American whose ancestors were brought to the United States and sold as slaves, whether or not they were eventually freed, could not be 'true citizens.' He also claimed that outlawing slavery anywhere was unconstitutional due to the implications for farmers and plantation owners and how they profited from slavery. Taney's declaration is likely to be overturned because men of African descent already have the right to vote in certain states, assumingely non-slave states.
Author: Derrick McCoy Jr.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ruling of the Scott v. Sandford Trial now!

# data[].attributes.subject
Ruling of the Scott v. Sandford Trial now!

# data[].attributes.body
The case began when an enslaved African American named Dred Scott moved with his slave owner Dr. Emerson to a free state and was still not freed. This situation was against the Missouri Compromise which stated  that the Louisiana purchase land that was north of the 36'30" line was free states and any south territory was slave states. Since the land north of the 36'30" was free it meant that it should have been illegal for someone to own a slave in those states. Dred Scott challenged this in court and it eventually made it to the Supreme Court.

The one ruling this case was Chief Justice Robert B. Taney. Taney wrote that even though Dred Scott was living on free soil it does not make him free, and that Scott was still property. He later wrote that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because no one could ban slavery. He said that banning slavery would be like taking someones property so he said that the constitution protected slavery. This meant that no African Americans were safe in the U.S. not even if they were living in free states.

Author: Abbey Weidenhoffer

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott was a slave who was owned by a white man named John Emerson. Dred Scott was originally from Missouri before moving to Illinois with John Emerson. The problem with this move is that Illinois is north of the 36,30 line which makes it a non-slave state according to the Missouri compromise. Dred Scott later returned to Missouri where he was sold and he filed to the Supreme Court for his freedom. This became a controversial case that was debated for a long time.

It was decided by the Court that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional and that the rule did not apply to colored people. The court basically said that a person of color did not count as a real human which is absolutely wrong and ridiculous.

Written by: Mary Clark

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v. Sanford Trial: Dred Scott Ruling Out Now!

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v. Sanford Trial: Dred Scott Ruling Out Now!

# data[].attributes.body
The Dredd Scott case was caused by The Missouri Compromise that stated that slavery was illegal past the 36' 30" line. Dredd Scott was a slave who was from Missouri and owned by John Emerson. Scott was moved from Missouri to Illinois to a Minnesota Territory which was a free state. With the passing of Scott's owner John Emerson, Scott and his wife Harriet believed that they should have freedom since they lived in a free state. When Scott's attempts to buy his freedom from his owner's wife were denied he then moved on to file individual lawsuits. Scott filed a lawsuit saying that since he and his wife had residence with a free state that they should be declared free.

When he brought his case to the supreme court they did not agree. They not only denied Scott's request to become a free American but they also denied that he was an American citizen at all because of the color of his skin. Justice Taney wrote the final verdict of the case saying that African Americans did not have a  right to sue in the supreme court. He also wrote that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional so which meant Congress did not have the power to stop the spread of slavery.

Author: Mary May

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott Denied? What Does This Mean For Slaves? Scott v. Stanford!!

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott Denied? What Does This Mean For Slaves? Scott v. Stanford!!

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. Emerson (of the U.S. Army) bought a slave named Dred Scott in Missouri. He took Scott to Rock Island, Missouri (a free state), and two years later took him to Fort Snelling (which after the Missouri Compromise became a free territory). Scott took this to the Missouri court, which ruled against Scott, then Scott took it to the Supreme Court.
(not done)

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott, a slave from Missouri who was owned by John Emerson. He took Scott from Missouri to Illinois and then to Wisconsin. After 2 years, he was moved to Fort Snelling. He argued that since he was living in a free state, he should no longer be a slave.
The Supreme Court was against Scott. They said that he is not a U.S. citizen because he is black so he had no right to sue them. The Supreme Court was against the Missouri Compromise and said that it was unconstitutional. This shows how unfairly African Americans were treated in America.

-Caroline Cochran

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v. Sanford Trail: What does this mean for slavery?

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v. Sanford Trail: What does this mean for slavery?

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott was an enslaved African-American. He was taken to postings in free states and territories by his slave owner before arriving in the slave state of Missouri. The issue is that he was taken north of the 36, 30 line which makes it a free state and he was still enslaved. He was fed up and believed everyone should be treated equally. He sued for his freedom known as the Scott v. Sanford Trail. The odds of winning were slim.

The supreme court's response to that was, that all black slaves or even free slaves could never become a citizen of the united states. Congress also ruled that slavery was still permitted in the U.S. This means that slavery didn't come to a end and continued for much longer. The court basically doesn't care that people are being used as property.

Written by: Grace Allen

# data[].attributes.headline
Taney's Ruling Released on the Dred Scott Case: Read Now!

# data[].attributes.subject
Taney's Ruling Released on the Dred Scott Case: Read Now!

# data[].attributes.body
This case all began because of the Missouri Compromise. As all of you know from some of our latest issues the Missouri compromise said that any land in the Louisiana Purchase north of the 36' 30" line was a free state and any state south was a slave state. He began in Missouri, a slave state then moved to Illinois and then to Fort Snelling, present-day Minnesota, which are both free states. The issue came up that he thought he became free because he had lived in a free state. Because of this, he decided to challenge it in the court of Missouri. Their ruling said that just because he lived in a free state does not mean he is free. He needs to officially be let go by his owner. This means he had to remain a slave even though he was in a free state.

Then, because this ruling did not sit right with Dred Scott he brought it to the supreme court. Unfortunately, this changed nothing, Taney kept the initial ruling that he should not be free because it was ruled unconstitutional. They said these powers could not be used by people of color. Along with this, they said the supreme court said that a slave African American, nor a free African American could be considered a true citizen that gets entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities that citizens get. This means he should have never legally brought this issue to the courts. The question of this case being "Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen?" the answer found through the ruling was that slaves and their descendants, even if they were free would not be counted as a real person.

Author: Sarah Kilmurray

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v. Sanford Outcome Released; What This Could Mean for Americans

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v. Sanford Outcome Released; What This Could Mean for Americans

# data[].attributes.body
To give some background for this case, we need to go back to 1830. Dred Scott, born a slave, was sold to Dr. Emerson in St. Louis, Missouri. He was then moved with Dr. Emerson to a military post in Illinois, a free state. He was then also moved to Fort Snelling in Minnesota Territory, a free territory. Finally, he was moved back to a slave state. He filed for his freedom in lower courts but lost. Thus, he went to the Supreme Court, and, after 11 years, the ruling is released.

Chief Justice Taney states in the ruling that, unfortunately, Dred Scott is still an enslaved person. This meant he was not a citizen and had no right to bring a lawsuit. He also says that because a slave is considered property, living on free soil does not make you free. Finally, and this may change how we live forever, Congress cannot ban slavery. This means that the Missouri Compromise is not Constitutional. All we have worked for, for nothing. This is a dark day for America.

Written by Gavin Malott

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott vs. Sanford: Supreme Court ruling has been published!

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott vs. Sanford: Supreme Court ruling has been published!

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. Emerson (a slave owner) took Dred Scott(a slave) and his family from Missouri to a military post in Rock Island located in the state of Illinois. After living there for 2 years with Dr. Emerson, Dred Scott was removed to the 36,30 line. The 36,30 line is the line across the country where slavery is legal and illegal. Even though Dred Scott was passed the 36,30 line he and his family were never set free of slavery.
The question that is trying to be answered in the court case is, "Can a negro whose family was bought into America, become a member of a political community." Dred Scott lost his Court case and filed to receive a court day with the Supreme Court. It was very rare for African-Americans to be allowed to go to the Supreme Court, but Dred Scott received a trial.
The Supreme Court ruled and stated that Dred Scott could not be a citizen. The language used in the Declaration of Independence shows that neither the class of persons who have been slaves nor the defendants of slaves had no rights or privileges but such as any power held by the government.

Author: Rollin Crose

# data[].attributes.headline
Missouri Compromise Deemed Unconstitutional? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Missouri Compromise Deemed Unconstitutional? 

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott, a slave from Missouri filed for his freedom. This is due to the fact that his owners took him to 2 states where slavery is prohibited. He was taken from Missouri to Louisiana and Fort Snelling. Once he returned back to Missouri, he was sold and that is when he appealed to the Supreme Court for his freedom. His wife also filed for hers, as they both fought to become free people.

In the end, the Court ultimately decided that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that this rule did not apply to people of color. It was stated that in order for them to be free, their owner would have to take them to Louisiana and Fort Snelling with the intention of freeing them. Otherwise, even when slaves were taken to free states, they were still the property of their owners.

Written By: Rhea Sriram

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v. Sanford Trial: What does this case mean for African Americans?

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v. Sanford Trial: What does this case mean for African Americans?

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott was a born slave from Missouri. He got purchased by Dr. Emerson of the U.S. army in St. Louis, Missouri. Dr. Emerson took Scott to Illinois, a free state, while he was under his control. He was then moved to Fort Snelling, where the Missouri Compromise had outlawed slavery. Dr. Emerson later died after moving Dred Scott and his wife Harriet Scott multiple times through free territory. They both fought for their freedom. This case ultimately reached the Supreme Court after the case was ruled against Scott at the Missouri Court.

In the trial, Scott received much support from abolitionists, including powerful politicians and high-profile attorneys. However, Scott ended up losing the trial again. Chief Justice Taney wrote the final majority opinion in the case saying that African Americans, free or enslaved, had no right to sue in federal court.  In addition, he also wrote that the Fifth Amendment protected slave owner rights because enslaved workers were their legal property. It also stated that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and this meant that Congress didn't have any power to prevent the spread of slavery. Taney's ruling was saying that African Americans would never get the whole freedom they deserved. However, Scott and his family later got sold to Taylor Blow, who released them to freedom. Happily, Scott and his family got freedom, even though they would never be fully free in their lifetime.

Written By:
Emery Payne

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v. Sandford Trial: Taney's Ruling Just Released!!!

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v. Sandford Trial: Taney's Ruling Just Released!!!

# data[].attributes.body
Paragraph One: Explain the history behind the case. Include details explaining what the case is about.
Paragraph Two: What does his (Taney's) ruling mean for African Americans living in the United States?

Author: Traci Erlandson