# data[].attributes.headline
Scott vs. Stanford case: the supreme court realesed the case

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott vs. Stanford case: the supreme court realesed the case

# data[].attributes.body
The controversial Dred Scott case, in which enslaved man Dred Scott sued the Missouri government for his freedom, was recently decided by the Supreme Court. This argument is based on the fact that he was enslaved in Missouri by an Army Doctor, who later worked in Minnesota and Illinois, both of which are free states where slavery is illegal. Dred Scott fought for his and his wife's freedom after returning to Missouri, claiming that they had lived in a state where slavery was outlawed.
Because someone of African heritage is ineligible to become a US citizen, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that Dred Scott lacked standing to sue.This was a significant setback for the Abolitionist Movement, and years of progress for African American rights were halted.

Author: Hayden Redd

# data[].attributes.headline
Dred Scott vs. Sanford Case: Missouri Compromise causes trouble in Missouri.

# data[].attributes.subject
Dred Scott vs. Sanford Case: Missouri Compromise causes trouble in Missouri.

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri who was moved to Indianapolis (a free state). Scott sued for his freedom when his owners later brought him back to Missouri. He claimed that because he had been taken into "free" U.S. territory, he had been set free. This case eventually made it all the way to the Supreme court.
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney presided over the Dred Scott vs. Sanford Case. He declared that all blacks could never become citizens of the United States. This meant that all people of African American descent could never be allowed to be citizens of the United States.

Author: Jack Wolaver

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v. Sandford Trial Case: Suing for Freedom

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v. Sandford Trial Case: Suing for Freedom

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott, an enslaved African American man attempts to sue for freedom. His previous owner moved him into two different forts both of which prohibits slavery. One was in Illinois which has been a free state for  a while the other above the Missouri Compromise line. This therefore means that Dred Scott should be a free man. The court Scott went to ruled against. The Supreme Court though agreed as if rubbing it in. Supreme Court said that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that the court had no power over where slave owners take their slaves. This renders the Missouri Compromise useless and states that are free even before are in fact all slave states. The Chief Justice of the court Roger Tanney said that free or enslaved african americans had no rights to court.

Author: Deglan Picha

# data[].attributes.headline
Dred Scott v. Sandford Trial: A Verdict by Taney Just Released!!!  

# data[].attributes.subject
Dred Scott v. Sandford Trial: A Verdict by Taney Just Released!!!  

# data[].attributes.body
After ten years the Supreme Court finally releases a verdict on the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. Dred Scott’s story started when Scott was bought in Missouri by Dr. Emerson. The doctor took Scott with him to to a military post at Rock Island in Illinois. After two years, Scott was moved to Fort Snelling, which is north of the line of 36°30’. At Fort Snelling, a slave, owned by  Major Tallafero, was married to Dred Scott. They had two children together. Neither Dred Scott or his wife were ever set free by their owners. In both territories slavery was prohibited, in Illinois by the Constitution of Illinois and in Fort Snelling under the Missouri Act of 1820. Scott and his wife were then sold to Sandford. Dred Scott argued that he and his family should be free because they resided and were carried in free territories.

The Missouri court decided against Dred Scott. They said that Scott's and his wife's temporary residence in a Free State did not make them free in the state of Missouri. Dred Scott appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roger Tanney ruled against Dred Scott and claimed that Africans were not intended to be included as citizens in the Constitution, and can therefore can not enjoy the rights and privileges that are guaranteed for citizens of the United States. Consequently, the court ruled that because Dred Scott or those of an African decent are not included as citizens in the constitution, they also are not entitled to sue in its courts. This ruling is doltish and sickening. Rulings should not be dictated  based on someones race. It is cruel and inhumane to deny another human their God given rights based off the color of their skin.

Author: Lana Cole

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v. Sandford Trial: Ruling by Taney

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v. Sandford Trial: Ruling by Taney

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott was taken to a military post in Illinois as a slave by Dr. Emerson. Two years later, he was moved to Fort Snelling in Minnesota territory where he would marry and have one kid and another when they returned to Missouri. Scott and his family returned to Missouri as slaves and were never set free despite being in a free state and free territory. Feeling like he should be free, Scott sued.
After ten years, the final ruling was made by Chief Justice Taney. His ruling was that Dred Scott nor any other African American was not an American citizen which gave him no right to sue in the first place. Chief Justice Taney also ruled that Congress did not have the power to ban slavery making the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.

Author: Hayden Mulrooney

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v. Sandford trial case: will his case be proven or not.

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v. Sandford trial case: will his case be proven or not.

# data[].attributes.body
To begin, This case had brought the public's attention when it began. Dr. Emerson of Missouri had bought Dred Scott as a slave in 1831. But in which where Dred was taken to a military base in Illinois. but the constitution of Illinois had made slavery illegal. this had mean't that the Missouri compromise had only 36' 30 south of the line; where slavery is forbidden. This could mean that Scott may have attempt to obtain his freedom while he was still in the state. Emerson was transferred to fort Snellings, where he remained for the duration of his career.  Then the case was issued but Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: Roger Taney states that all African descent, whether free or enslaved, were not US people and therefore had no right to even sue in the federal court. Scott could have sued for his freedom and win this case. This could also lead to believe that  the other African Americans following suit, potentially bring upon an uprising or riot.

Author: Will Weathersby

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v. Sanford Trial: The Judge has made a final decision!

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v. Sanford Trial: The Judge has made a final decision!

# data[].attributes.body
An enslaved man named Dred Scott was sold to a man named Dr. Emerson in 1830. Dr. Emerson took Dred Scott from Missouri to Illinois. Dred Scott married another slave and had two kids. He was moved to Fort Snelling, which was free territory. Dred was sold to a man named Sanford. He was then brought back to Missouri. He argued that he and his family should be free because they were brought into the free state of Illinois and into free territories by his master.
Chief Justice Roger Tanney ruled against Dred Scott and his family. He ruled that no African Americans enslaved or free had rights. This is a horrible ruling because everyone should be free in America. No matter what someones race is we should all be treated equally and have the same rights.

Author: Cort Casey

# data[].attributes.body
The case all starts with a slave, Dred Scott from Missouri and he was owned by Dr Emerson. They both traveled to a military post at Rock Island, Illinois. After staying there for two years he moved to Fort Snelling. Dred Scott married a slave and had two children with her. Dred Scott has recently filed a lawsuit for not being considered a free man. The Missouri court filed against Dred Scott, because temporarily living in a free state does not make him a free man.
Taney, the chief justice, ruled that all people of African descent, free or enslaved were not considered as US citizens. Therefore they had no rights. He also ruled that the Missouri compromise is "unconstitutional". This could cause a huge problem that will most likely end in country wide debate.
Editor: Victoria Sandoval

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott was a body servant to Dr. Emerson. They moved from Missouri to Fort Snelling Illinois for two years, Fort rt Snelling is north of The 30*36' line so it's a non-slave state.

Dred Scott and his wife were then sold to Sanford by Dr. Emerson. Dred Scott claimed that because he was moved to a free state for two years he was a free man and he could not be sold to Sanford. The Missouri court ruled against this, and Scott was sold to Sanford. To every other African American, this means that if you have been sold into slavery then you are the person's slave until they choose to set you free.

Author: Denton Smith

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott vs Sanford trial: The Supreme Court Released the Case.

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott vs Sanford trial: The Supreme Court Released the Case.

# data[].attributes.body
The Dred Scott case is released today. This is a case where Dred Scott wants his freedom cause his owner Dr. Emerson took him to two free states. Those two states were Minnesota and Illinois. So Scott thinks he should be free because he was in a state where slavery was illegal. So should his owner get in trouble because of this? Then in the constitution, it states that everyone should have equal rights so therefore Scott should be a freedman. Also, he had children in a free state and they are not free either. So the Case is wrong because of this and his family should be free.

Author: Ethan Crews

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott was purchased by a slave owner named Dr. Emerson in Missouri. Emerson moved to Illinois and brought Dred Scott and his family with him. Illinois is a free state and its constitution states "once free, always free". Later Scott and his family moved to the Minnesota territory another free area. Eventually, Dred Scott and his family moved back to Missouri and he was sold back into slavery.
Dred Scott said that it was illegal for him to be a slave since he once lived in a free state. This case was taken all the way to the supreme court and its ruling was of great effect. The supreme court ruling said that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and would no longer be in effect. The ruling also said African Americans were not and could not be citizens. This meant for African Americans that the quest for freedom had taken a halt. Many free African Americans could return to slavery after this ruling. Finally, this ruling was tough on African Americans because it ruled they could never become citizens.

Author: Austin Harris

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court Rules in Dred Scott vs Sandford Case!

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court Rules in Dred Scott vs Sandford Case!

# data[].attributes.body
Today, the Supreme Court just issued a ruling on the controversial Dred Scott case, where enslaved man Dred Scott sued the Missouri Government for his freedom. The base for this claim comes from the fact that he was enslaved by an Army Doctor in Missouri, who then temporarily worked in Minnesota and Illinois, both of which are free states and all slavery is banned. After returning to Missouri, Dred Scott sued for freedom for him and his wife due to having lived in a place where all slavery is illegal.
The ruling made by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney stated that anyone of African descent is not eligible to become a U.S. Citizen, therefore, Dred Scott did not have the right to sue. This was a large step back for the Abolitionist Movement, and set back years of progress for African American rights.

Author and Editor, Mason Merkle

# data[].attributes.headline
Dred Scott v. Sanford Trial: Supreme Courts Ruling Released.

# data[].attributes.subject
Dred Scott v. Sanford Trial: Supreme Courts Ruling Released.

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott's owner Dr. Emerson took Dred from Missouri as a body servant to a Military post at Rock Island. After 2 years in Rock Island, he was moved into Fort Snerling which is North of the 36' 30'' line. Scott then returned to Missouri with his one daughter and then had another daughter. The Scott family thought they were free by law, but they were then sold into slavery in Samford. They then filed a suit against Samford. His reasoning for this is he believed that it was illegal for him to be sold into slavery when he had lived in Illinois a free state and by Illinois constitution, it states "once free always free"
Taney's (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) ruling states that African Americans free or enlaved had no power. He is stating here that even if African Americans are free then they have no power in America and that they have no importance in America. This is terrible because in the constitution it states that "the Land of the free" but to the south that doesn't mean African Americans.

Author: West Smith

# data[].attributes.headline
Missouri Compromise causes conflict and starts the Dred Scott case

# data[].attributes.subject
Missouri Compromise causes conflict and starts the Dred Scott case

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott is a slave from Missouri who moved to multiple different states each having multiple different rules which caused confusion. Missouri is a slave state and that is where Dred Scott became a slave. But when his owner moved to Minnesota and Illinois he took Scott with him which gave Scott some sort of freedom even though his master never set him free. When they returned to Missouri Dred Scott wanted to keep his freedom there even though it was not a free state. His wanting to become a free man in the state of Missouri started the Scott v. Sandford Trial.
The Dred Scott case has had a big impact on every African American living in the United States. The conclusion of the Scott v. Stanford case was that African Americans are not allowed to become citizens which means Dred Scott never had the power to call the trial anyway. This means that all African Americans are not aloud to be called citizens.

Author: Lila McClain

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott vs Stanford trial. Will freedom ever be available to all? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott vs Stanford trial. Will freedom ever be available to all? 

# data[].attributes.body
To begin, the Scott v. Stanford trial has occupied the public's attention since it began. Dr. Emerson of Missouri purchased Dred Scott as a slave in 1831. When Emerson moved to a military base in Illinois, he took Scott with him. Slavery is illegal in Illinois, according to the state constitution.
Scott may have attempted to obtain his freedom while still staying in the state. Emerson was transferred to Fort Snellings, where he remained for the rest of his military career. Slavery was made illegal in the state where Fort Snellings was located as a result of the Missouri Compromise. Scott and his wife were sold to Sanford while stationed at Fort Snellings. Scott would eventually sue for his freedom and win. This could lead to other African Americans following suit, potentially sparking an uprising.

Author: Quinn Showalter

# 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