# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v. Sandford Trial: What will this mean for the Missouri Compromise?

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v. Sandford Trial: What will this mean for the Missouri Compromise?

# data[].attributes.body
Chief Justice Taney had released the verdict which has raised the concern of a few. Dred Scott had decided to sue his owner, Dr. John Emerson, due to the fact of him being taken to free land, yet not being set free. During the court case between Dred Scott and his owner, Dr. John Emerson, Dred Scott claims he should be free since he was in a free state. He had gone with Dr. John Emerson to Missouri and Illinois. He argued that due to the Missouri Compromise, he should be a free man because that state had ruled out slavery. In the Illinois Constitution, where he had also gone, it says that "once free always free".
Mr. Scott had decided to attempt to sue and gain freedom of his life as a U.S. citizen. Chief Justice Taney had ruled that to be considered a U.S. citizen, you can not be African American. It is seen that African Americans, free or enslaved, are not seen as U.S. citizens. When this news was shared with the world, many had controversial opinions on the matter. If African Americans, free or enslaved, are not seen as U.S. citizens, what will this mean for their rights or their well-being in general?

Author: Melissa Villa

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v. Standford ruling Just released: What does this mean for Slaves?

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v. Standford ruling Just released: What does this mean for Slaves?

# data[].attributes.body
The decision of Chief Justice Taney on the Scott v. Standford trial has a grim and disappointing reality. The ruling was made that Dredd Scott would not be permitted as a free man and citizenship even though he made two trips to free territories with his wife. It is illegal to own slaves in the free territories that Scott went to, but the ruling still stands that Dredd Scott will not become a free man.

What did this mean for slaves in the future?
Taney's final decision on the matter was that it was unconstitutional. Also, that slaves under no circumstances should a slave become a citizen after going to a free state. This is a sad reality that we face today but there is still hope if we keep pushing for the abolition of slavery one day it will happen.

Author: Jasper Rhodes

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott V. Sandford Trial - Taney's Ruling: What it Means for African Americans Nationwide

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott V. Sandford Trial - Taney's Ruling: What it Means for African Americans Nationwide

# data[].attributes.body
Supreme Court Justice Taney recently released the ruling for the Scott V Sandford case, and the results will forever change the course of this nation's history. This case involves Dred Scott and his fight to be free. Recently, Dred Scott, a slave at the time, was taken to the State of Illinois, a free state by its constitution, by his owner Dr. Emerson. Then, he was taken to Fort Snelling, another area where slavery is considered illegal by the Missouri Compromise. Dred Scott was then returned to Missouri with his owner and wife, whom he met on the trip. Since he was in free territory during the trip, Dred Scott sued for his freedom when he got back to Missouri. The Missouri court went against him by saying that he was not free unless his owners deliberately took him there to free him.

Dred Scott then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, with his main point being that he was taken to a state that outlawed slavery, then taken to a territory where slavery was explicitly made illegal many years ago in the Missouri Compromise. The Supreme Courts response was that African American people are not considered citizen of the United States. Because of this, Dred Scott had no right to sue for his freedom in federal court, since he was not a citizen. Furthermore, the Supreme Court said that no state had the right to outlaw slavery, as slaves were considered property and now protected by the government as if they were property. This also meant that the Missouri Compromise was deemed unconstitutional. This ruling is a blatant attack on African Americans throughout the nation, freed or unfreed, and could mean disastrous outcomes for African Africans in the U.S. as the debate of slavery continues.

Author: Jackson S. Pryor

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
Chief Justice Taney just released his verdict and it is a very controversial one. Dred Scott, a husband, and father owned by Dr. Emerson for a long time. Dr. Emerson had recently taken Dred Scott along with him to two free places: Rock Island, IL, a free state, and Fort Snelling, a free territory.  Even though Scott had been taken into two free areas, his owner never officially freed him. Scott pleaded that he should be a free man since he had been taken into these places.

Taney's ruled that since slaves are property, they have no rights, and they are always enslaved until their owner sets them free. This ruling means that African Americans are not and should not be considered citizens and do not deserve any rights. This ruling impels us to ask the question:  Will slaves ever see freedom?

Author: Kyle Curlee

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v.Sandford: Free or not, we now know the answer!!

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v.Sandford: Free or not, we now know the answer!!

# data[].attributes.body
This case has caused great controversy. A slave named Dred Scott has sued his owner saying that he is free and no longer his slave. Dred Scott had lived in St.Louis Missuriy which as you know a slave state. His owner then moved to Illinois a free state and then to a free territory. He says that he became free when he first arrived in Illinois and continued to be free when he returned voluntarily to St. Louis.

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that because of Scott's African descent he had no right to sue Sandford to begin with. The Justice says that all African Americans have never been citizens and are not entitled to rights stated in the constitution. He says that if Scott was taken to a free state then he would still be considered property and it would be illegal for Scott to be taken by the state as he is owned by someone else. This ruling has drastically affected free slaves as now it is stated that they have no rights. So the question of whether African Americans will have rights in the future still remains.

Author: Will Miraglia

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v. Sandford Trial: What are African American's rights?

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v. Sandford Trial: What are African American's rights?

# data[].attributes.body
Today Chief Justice Taney has made a final decision on the Scoot v. Sandford case. Dred Scott is a African American who has been enslaved his whole life. Dred Scott was enslaved man but was living in a free state at that time. He was never officially set free but his owners children let him free once the owners died. Scott and his wife claimed that having been voluntarily by his owner into a free state, and having been there servant, he was upon voluntarily return with his master, to Missouri, a free man there, in virtue of his temporary residence in a free territory.

Taney's ruling stated that the court thinks that Scott can not be a citizen of the state of Missouri, within the meaning of the constitution of the United States, and, consequently was not entitled to sue in courts. Also the Declaration of Independence stated that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as part of the people, nor intended to be to be included in those general words used in that general instrument. This statements mean that whether the African American is free or not they do not have rights and do not count as U.S. citizens. What are African Americans rights gonna be in the future if they ever get any sort of freedom?

Written by Riley Stooksbury

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v. Sandford Trial: Is Freedom and Citizenship Denied? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v. Sandford Trial: Is Freedom and Citizenship Denied? 

# data[].attributes.body
In this court case, there has been controversy about the freedom of Dred Scott. Dred Scott is a husband and father who has been the slave of Dr. Emerson for a very long time, almost his whole life. But, in the recent past, he has been taken to two free territories in our union. Because of this, he feels the understanding that he is a free slave. In conclusion, he has some sensible reasons why he has sued for his freedom.

Recently, because of the outcomes of this case many Americans ask how can this go on. This is because Taney's ruling states that Congress cannot prohibit slavery according to the constitution. But after this statement, it leads us to conclude that the Missuri Comprimise is unconstitutional. Also, because of this ruling African-American slaves will be gravely affected because now the only way they can be free is if their owners free them. This draws us to ask, will they ever have the rights they fight for?

Author: Arabella Larson

# data[].attributes.headline
Just Released: Scott v. Sandford Verdict!!! Free Man or Citizenship Denied?

# data[].attributes.subject
Just Released: Scott v. Sandford Verdict!!! Free Man or Citizenship Denied?

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court just released the verdict in the Scott v. Sandford case. Dred Scott was a slave owned by Dr. Emerson who resided in St. Louis Missouri a slave state. He then moved to a military post at Rock Island in Illinois, a free state, and later to Fort Snelling, which is in a free territory. There Scott met and married his wife, another slave, and they had two children. Later they were sold to Sandford, who they ended up filing the lawsuit against.

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that Scott, being of African American descent, was not an American citizen and therefore, was not entitled to any of the rights stated in the constitution. One of the main arguments against Scott was that African Americans could not file a lawsuit in court. This is one of the many rights African Americans are now stripped of. This case shows that African Americans are not to be considered American citizens. So the question remains, will African Americans ever be given the rights they deserve?

Author: Ally Bjorkman

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v. Sandford Trial: TAney's Detrimental Verdict

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v. Sandford Trial: TAney's Detrimental Verdict

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott has been enslaved ever since he was a small child. His former owner, named Dr. Emerson, moved with Scott to two different locations. Fort Snelling and Illinois. In both of those locations, slavery is illegal. Illinois even had a saying surrounding it, "once free always free". Scott argued that since he lived inside of free territory for several years then he should be a free man.

Taney however disagreed. He argued that African Americans have never and will never be citizens of the United States. He also argued that because Scott was not a citizen so therefore he does not have access to the court of law. This ruling was especially devastating to the free African Americans of this country. It raises the question will they ever be truly free?

Author: Jordyn Rosser

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v Sandford Trial: Missouri Compromise Declared Unconstitutional by Taney's Ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v Sandford Trial: Missouri Compromise Declared Unconstitutional by Taney's Ruling

# data[].attributes.body
Chief Justice Taney, on this day, made his decision on the Scott v. Sandford case. Dred Scott has been a slave his entire life, yet during his time as a slave, he was sent to two free states, states where slavery was illegal. Despite this, he was never set free by his owner. With this in mind, Scott took his case to court, saying that he should be a free man because of the fact he was taken to these places.

Now, because of Taney's ruling, it essentially says that Congress cannot prohibit slavery. However, this declares that the Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional. This directly affects African-Americans by meaning they can only be freed by their owner. Not only that, but his ruling also says that African-Americans can never be citizens of the United States. Considering this is the case, will slaves ever be free and will slavery ever be abolished?

-Written by Elena Sallee

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v. Sandford Trial: Verdict Released

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v. Sandford Trial: Verdict Released

# data[].attributes.body
Today Chief Justice Taney made his decision on the Scott v. Sandford case. Scott is a former slave owned by Dr. Emerson. During Scott's time as a slave for Dr. Emerson they traveled to Illinois and Fort Snelling. Slavery is illegal in both of these territories. Scott's argument is that he became a free man once he entered these territories and continued to be free when he voluntarily returned to Missouri with Dr. Emerson. Therefore, the purchase of Scott and his wife from Mr. Sandford is illegal.

Chief Justice Taney explained that even though Illinois has an anti-slavery law, Scott was not a permanent resident. As for Minnesota, Taney ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. Finally, Chief Justice Taney ruled that African Americans can never be a citizen of the United States and therefore can never sue in a court of law. This is a grim outlook for the African-Americans in the United States because even if they get their freedom, they are never going to have rights or be equal.

-Written by Will Getman

# data[].attributes.headline
Results on Scott v. Sandford Trial Out; Ruling Grim For Slaves!

# data[].attributes.subject
Results on Scott v. Sandford Trial Out; Ruling Grim For Slaves!

# data[].attributes.body
Our story thus far: this court case has asked the Supreme Court a question: is an enslaved man free if he lives in a free state for a while? This was the question proposed about Dred Scott, a slave taken to two different areas where slaves are free, but, he was never set free officially by his owner. Scott claims that he is a free man because of these places, and he took this case to court. Taney claimed that because slaves are property, there are no rights for them, and slaves can not be taken because of protection of property listed in the Constitution.

This ruling means that slaves here in these United States can never be set free unless their owner sets them free; no matter where they move, because they are the slaveholders property. The ruling also claims that there should be no Missouri Compromise, because taking away slaves is taking property.

-Aiden Rubin de la Borbolla

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott v. Sanford Trial: Will freedom ever be an option for slaves?

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott v. Sanford Trial: Will freedom ever be an option for slaves?

# data[].attributes.body
This is a very controversial case that is currently a main concern throughout the nation. Dred Scott has been a slave throughout all of his adult life. However, when he was a slave he had been taken to two different places that are free territories. Also, he and his wife thought that since they were free once, that they were forever free. These reasons are why he felt the need to sue for his freedom.

Now that this case has been finished, it leaves many Americans to wonder what will happen now. Taney's ruling states that technically they cannot prohibit slavery because of the Constitution. This also concludes that the Missouri Compromise is actually unconstitutional. However, the most important part of this trial, is that African Americans may not be viewed as citizens of the United States at all. So, will freedom ever be an option for slaves?
- Written by Ava Magness

# 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