# data[].attributes.body
The Dred Scott case was a long battle for African American men's rights. It involved Dred Scott, a slave who was brought into a free state by Dr. Emerson. Dred Scott decided to sue, pleading that he was a free man due to the fact that he was passed through a free state.

The Supreme Court denied this with a bunch of racial bias. They said that he wasn't free because he went from a free state back into a slave state, so if he was free at one point, he wasn't free the second he crossed back into a slave state. They also said he had no right to sue, because he was an African American slave, and he has no rights. Taney was really unfair this time around. I'm dreading the backlash of this case. (Get It??)
- Noah Rolfe

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott was a slave that was originally from Missouri and was taken to Rock Island, Illinois. He then removed back to Fort Snelling which is in present-day Minnesota. He tried to sue his owner because he wrongly kept him as a slave in two free states and he wanted to be a free man. He decided that trying to go to court was the only option. Once he sued Dr. Ermerson, his slave owner, he went to the Supreme court.

The supreme court ruled against Dred Scott. They ruled that African Americans were property and therefore are not citizens. While making that decision, they also were using personal bias against him because he was African American. They also said that the Missouri compromise is not constitutional and has no value. Even though they rejected him, this event was very monumental.

-Written by Kaitlin White

# data[].attributes.headline
Verdict Released By Taney In Scott v. Sandford:

# data[].attributes.subject
Verdict Released By Taney In Scott v. Sandford:

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott is a Missouri slave who has been trying to sue his owner, Dr. Emerson for taking him to Illinois, a free state, while still being enslaved. After a few years, they did move back to Missouri but Scott is saying that since Illinois is a free state he should be considered a free man and released by Dr. Emerson. Scott brought this case all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has said that in order for Scott to become a free man, Dr. Emerson has to willingly release him. They also stated that he had no right to sue since he is an African American man. This case had many people taking sides but since the verdict has now been released, many wonder if there is still hope for Mr. Scott.

- Lucca Ziskind

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott was a African American slave that was from Missouri. Dred Scott was unhappy about not being a free man, so he sued Dr. Emerson his owner for freedom. The reason he claimed that he should be a free man was because throughout his life he had lived in many different areas where slavery was illegal. Dr. Emerson took him to Rock Island, Illinois for two years and then Fort Snelling. After sueing Dr. Emerson he appealed to the Supreme Court to be free.

The Supreme court ruled against Dred, and gave him reasons why he shouldn't be free. The Supreme Court stated that he has no right to sue because he is not a U.S. citizen because of his color. The Supreme Court also said that he crossed a free state into a slave state and the "once free, always free" saying doesn't apply in the south. This case was unconstitutional and Chief Justice Taney did not have the right to make such an unfair ruling.
-Lucy Dunavant

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott, a Missouri slave, was suing for the right to be called a free man. He contended that because his owner had brought him to two free states in which slavery was abolished, he should indeed be considered a free man. His argument was that because he lived in a free state, the once free, always free rule meant he could no longer be a slave. Because of the rule, his wife and he believed that they should be free even if they were in a slave state.

The Supreme Court ultimately determined that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The court argued that the constitution did not apply to people of color and that regardless of whether they were free or not if they lived in a slave state, they would be considered a slave. Making these assumptions allows us to see that they were doing everything except standing by one of their Missouri Compromise rulings.

-Larry Benson III

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v. Sandford Trial: The Missouri Compromise impacts this case!

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v. Sandford Trial: The Missouri Compromise impacts this case!

# data[].attributes.body
As the Dred Scott case gets more popular around the US, the question “Is Dred Scott still an enslaved person?” arises. Dred Scott was an enslaved African American who later sued for his freedom. He claimed that he should be a free man because he had lived in areas where slavery was illegal throughout his life. He caused the Court to rule on the wondering of slavery itself.

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney answers this question when he writes the Court’s opinion. Dred Scott was still an enslaved person and Congress had no power to ban slavery. This meant the Missouri Compromise, which banned slavery north of the 36º30' N latitude, was constitutional.
-Jayna Klco

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott was a slave from Missouri, was not happy about not being free man. His owner Dr. Emerson took him to two free states were he can be officially be free. He made a good argument with his owner about this fact. whenever he was in those states he was considered free unlike before. Both him and his wife believed he should be known as a free man.

Many people found this as the missouri compromise being unconstitutional. According To the court the the compromise did not affect people of color. No matter what state they are in they would be considered a slave.  Because of this it paved the way for what we think the court did about the compromise.

-Evan Thomas

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott is an African American slave from Missouri that sued his owner, Dr. Emerson. He did this because Dr. Emerson never set him as a free man after being voluntarily brought into 2 areas that did not allow slavery. Dr. Emerson took Dred Scott to Rock Island, Illinois for 2 years and to Fort Snelling afterward. In both of these places, slavery was strictly prohibited. Scott's reasoning for his case was that he lived in a free state, so therefore he should be free.

When Dred Scott took this to the Supreme Court, they made many decisions that went against the Constitution. They decided that Dred Scott should not be free because his owner had no intentions of freeing him. This ruling is very unconstitutional and goes against the Missouri Compromise. This ruling made prevented slaves from becoming free. This is most likely going to stir up anger from many people in America because it was showing how racist and unjust the supreme court is being.

-Austyn Storz

# data[].attributes.body
the Dred Scott case was a long fight for freedom for enslaved African American men. This case fought through many justices which eventually led it to the Supreme Court. The Scott vs. Sanford case originated when Dred Scott and his wife went to court for their freedom. Dredd said that since his owner took him to Missouri which is a free state, he had the right to be free. When the Supreme court ruled him enslaved many people were outraged and unhappy that the supreme court was acting unconstitutionally.

This ruling was very bad for African Americans living in America. It also labeled the supreme court as unconstitutional. Many African Americans would not only still be enslaved but this ruling made it impossible to become a citizen if you were of African American descent. African Americans pretty much had no rights after the ruling. This case was unconstitutional and Chief Justice Taney did not have the right to make such an unfair ruling.

- Liza Saenger

# data[].attributes.headline
The ruling on Dred Scotts case has finally been resolved.

# data[].attributes.subject
The ruling on Dred Scotts case has finally been resolved.

# data[].attributes.body
The case of Dred Scott vs. Sanford was about a slave named Dred Scott who was from Missouri. Dred claims that his owner took him to Illinois which is a free state while still being enslaved then a few years later moved back.  Dred is saying that since Illinois is a free state, he should be released and Freed by his owner. Many people see that if he is not free then the supreme court did not act constitutionally.

The supreme court ruled against Dred. They stated that he has no right to sue because he is not an A U.S. citizen because he is black. This came as a big slap to the face of many black Americans because A lot of them have lived there most of their lives. The supreme said that since he was there only a temporary amount of time he would still be enslaved. The supreme court was going against everything the Missouri compromise stood by and said that it was unconstitutional. This case opened the eyes of many Americans to how bad African Americans were being treated in America.

- Laurel Rogers

# data[].attributes.headline
IMPORTANT NEWS! Will The Supreme Court Allow Dred Scott to Be Free?

# data[].attributes.subject
IMPORTANT NEWS! Will The Supreme Court Allow Dred Scott to Be Free?

# data[].attributes.body
The Dred Scott case was about an African American that was put into slavery. Dr. Emerson kept moving him around America and he passed a free state thanks to the Missouri Compromise. He passed the free of Missouri and was then sent back to the south and he realized that he should've been free. He later sued Dr. Emerson and appealed to the Supreme Court to be free.

The Supreme Court gave reasons why he shouldn't be free because of racial bias. The Supreme Court said that he crossed a free state into a slave state and the "once free, always free" saying doesn't apply to the south. They also said that he shouldn't be able to appeal and sue anyway because he is a black man and being that he doesn't have the right to do anything. He lost the case but will he still be able to win his freedom?

-Siddiq Swanigan

# data[].attributes.headline
Great Scott Dread Scott case has come to a close 

# data[].attributes.subject
Great Scott Dread Scott case has come to a close 

# data[].attributes.body
dread Scott was a slave that traveld into the free state Missouri with his owner and then to Illinois . he later travled back into the south where he was sold. he sued because he believes that him being taken to a free state willingly would make him a free man. this case has reached the supreme court.

the supreme court said that in order for him to become a free man he must be freed by the man whom owned him and not just travel into a free state this also extends to the Missouri compromise witch is now found as unconstotional by the ruling of the supreme court

William Quirk

# data[].attributes.headline
EXTRA! Dred Scott Case! Missouri Compromise is Unconstitutional?

# data[].attributes.subject
EXTRA! Dred Scott Case! Missouri Compromise is Unconstitutional?

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott, a slave from Missouri was suing for not being known as a free man. Although his owner brought him into a free state twice, he stated that the once free always free rule changed him from a slave to a free man. Dred Scott believed that he should be recognized as a free man.

The ruling that the Supreme Court gave was that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. The court said that the constitution did not apply to people of color no matter if they were free or enslaved. The Supreme Court was not following the rule stated in the Missouri Compromise.

-Written by Elly Otieno

# data[].attributes.headline
Taney's Ruling Released in Scott vs Sandford Trial

# data[].attributes.subject
Taney's Ruling Released in Scott vs Sandford Trial

# data[].attributes.body
This case started with the Missouri compromise. Dred Scott's owner, Dr. Emerson, took Scott to Missouri, Illinois, and then fort snelling. At the time, in Illinois and Missouri slavery was prohibited. Dred Scott could have asserted his right to freedom in that state. Because slavery was prohibited in that state Dred Scott was a free man while he was in those states. He and His wife thought they would be set free so Scott ruled against this and tried to become a free man.

For any other African American in America, this was a big disagreement because it showed that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. The court argued that the constitution did not apply to people of color and no matter if they had been free or not if they were in a slave state. Making all of these assumptions we can see that they were doing everything except standing by their word to the Missouri Compromise.

- Written by Evan Asbell

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott, a slave from Missouri was suing for not being called a free man. He argued that his owner brought him to two free states where slavery was no more and that he should be considered a free man. His argument was that the once free always free rule made it so he could not be a slave anymore since he lived in a free state. His wife and he thought that they should be free even in a slave state because of the rule.

The ruling that the Supreme Court ultimately came up with was that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The court argued that the constitution did not apply to people of color and no matter if they had been free or not if they are in a slave state they would be viewed as a slave. Making these assumptions makes it so we can see that they were doing all except standing by one of their rulings in the Missouri Compromise

-Written by Nicholas Miller

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott, a slave from Missouri was suing for not being a free man. Despite his owner bringing him into a free state two different times where slavery was outlawed. He ruled for the once free always free rule and had been in and lived in fort snelling and Rock Island Illinois. He and his wife wanted and thought they would be set free because of the rule and they should be so Dred Scott ruled against this and tried to become a free man.

For any other African Americans in the United States of America, this was a large controversy because it showed that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The court all argued that the constitution did not retain people of color even if they are free or not. The court also argued that the section in which he went should not have been a free state in the first place. Making all of these assumptions we can see that they were doing everything except holding their word to the Missouri compromise.

-Written by Hudson Burns

# data[].attributes.headline
Missouri Compromise Considered NULL AND VOID

# data[].attributes.subject
Missouri Compromise Considered NULL AND VOID

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. Emerson took a slave from Missouri named Dred Scott, as a servant, to a military post at Rock Island, in the State of Illinois.  After staying there for two years, he was removed to Fort Snelling. However, under the Constitution of Illinois, slavery is prohibited and Dred Scott could have claimed his right to freedom while in that state. The second post in Fort Snelling was a territory in which slavery was prohibited by Missouri Act. Scott claims to have been carried voluntarily by his owner into a free state while being his servant, it was upon his voluntary return with his master, to Missouri, that he was a free man there even though he did not live there permanently.
The question that the courts were faced with was, can a negro become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and be entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed to the citizen?

They ruled that they think African Americans are not and that they are not included, and were never intended to be included. Under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, the court claims none of the rights and privileges are for African Americans. The Missouri Compromise is not considered unconstitutional, and no longer holds any power. This means that the states hold no power to abolish slavery.

Written by: Haley Jeanne Webb

# 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?

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott was a slave from Missouri, who sued his owner for "owning" him in a state where slavery was illegal. Because of being owned in a state where slavery was illegal, he sued his owner. But because he was black, he wasn't considered a citizen of the U.S.A. After 11 years of trying to sue his owner, it eventually worked its way to the supreme court.

-Slade Bohannan