https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx Imagine it is 1857, and you are a journalist writing for the “New York Star Daily News”. You have been assigned by your editor to write a news article on the ruling of the Dred Scott case. In two to four paragraphs, do the following: 1) Create a headline for your news article 2) Explain the context of the case What is the history behind the case? What are the details of the case? 3) Analyze & explain the final ruling by the Supreme Court (written by Chief Justice Taney) What does his ruling mean for African Americans living in the United States in 1857? (This includes the North and the South.) en-us 2022-04-25 19:18:33 UTC 2022-05-02 17:43:05 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.net/icons/png/2600.png terlandson https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2157211421 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]]> 2022-04-25 19:18:33 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2157211421 https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2160937303 To begin, the Scott v. Stanford trial has been on the front of America's mind since it started. Dred Scott was a slave who was bought by Dr. Emerson of Missouri. Emerson took Scott with him when he relocated to a military point in Illinois. Under the constitution of Illinois, slavery is prohibited. 
Technically, Scott could have tried to gain his freedom while residing in the state. After this, Emerson relocated to another military spot at Fort Snellings. As a result of the Missouri Compromise, slavery was then illegal in the state where Fort Snellings was. While at Fort Snellings, Scott and his wife were sold to Sanford. Eventually, Scott would sue for his freedom and win. Moving forward, this could lead to other African Americans doing the same, and potentially a revolt.

Author: Elise Pate]]> 2022-04-27 18:48:11 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2160937303 https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2160941537 Dred Scott was a slave for Dr. Emerson in Missouri. He was then moved to Illinois. Then to Minnesota where Dred Scott was married and had two kids. Scott and his family were then sold to Sandford in Minnesota. Scott and his family moved to Missouri (a slave state determined by the Missouri Compromise) and claimed that they should be free because they were originally in a free state. Because Scott believed he and his family should be free, he ended up suing Sanford and going to the Supreme Court.

Taney ruled that any African America, no matter if they're descendants of the slaves who came in 1619, don't and will never be U.S. citizens. Eventually, this was overturned and Scoot ended up winning the case. This is a huge provocation that will most likely end in country wide debate.

Author: Sarah Schmiedicke]]> 2022-04-27 18:51:13 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2160941537 https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2160944933   This case started Dr. Emerson moved from Missouri north of the 36.30 to the state of Illinois. In the process of moving Dr. Emerson took his slaves with him. Because Illinois is north of the 36, 30 line Illinois is a free state. Dr. Emerson moves to fort selling where Scott and his wife get married. Dr. Emerson then sells Scott and his wife to someone is Stanford whom he then sued. 
 
 Scott claimed that since he was willingly brought across state lines into a free state he was a free man. Since the constitution protects people’s property slave property is so recognized and protected by the Constitution of the United States that it can not be outlawed by states laws. 

   The verdict of the court was the following " The court thinks Dred Scott could 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 its courts". This basically means that since he was born into slavery he was not a citizen and therefore couldn’t sue. This would mean that anyone who was born into slavery or any free African American are not considered a citizen and could not acquire citizenship.


Author Sam Peregoy]]> 2022-04-27 18:53:25 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2160944933 sgisush https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2161004864 The Scott v. Sandford Case is a case of an African American man saying that every African American person should be free once they step into a place where slavery is prohibited. He said this after his owner moved him from a place where slaves were allowed to two free states. These places were both north of the Louisiana territory. The supreme court ruled that no African American Person should be able to partake in things other citizens may indulge in. 



This ruling affects the lives of both free and  enslaved African Americans. African Americans are not counted as citizens at this time. Neither the free African Americans had rights of a citizens. Any right thats automatically given to citizens can only be given to African Americans by other citizens or the government.  When following this ruling, this lawsuit wouldn't even be valid.

Author: Klarke M.]]> 2022-04-27 19:37:46 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2161004864 https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2161021456
   Dred Scott, a slave from Missouri has recently filed a lawsuit for not being considered a free man. After traveling to two free states, Scott was still not considered free in spite of laws that stated if he was to move to a free sate he would then become free. After being in the free state of Illinois, he was then sold in Minnesota to Alexander Sanford.  He then decided to sue Alexander Sanford which is how this case came to be.
   Taney, the chief justice, ruled that the Missouri Compromise is "unconstitutional". He also denied the legality of black citizenship in the United States whether it is in a free state or slave state. Him and six other justices justified this by saying that  slave owners were guaranteed property rights under the fifth amendment of the constitution. This means that no matter what state a slave is in they are still considered a slave. So, this has put a temporary cease to abolitionists efforts to end slavery. 
Author: Sarah Beth Beckham
    
  ]]> 2022-04-27 19:51:25 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2161021456 https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2161150033
This case starts with a slave, Dred Scott from Missouri and his master, Dr. Emerson. Dr. Emerson and Dred Scott to Rock Island, Illinois. Two years later, they moved to Rock Snelling, Minnesota. When in Minnesota, he met his wife and had two children. Then, he was sold to Sandford and they moved to Missouri. According to the Missouri Compromise, technically Dred Scott is free because Minnesota and Illinois are both free states.

Taney ruled that all people of African descent, free or enslaved, were not United States citizens. Therefore they had no right to sue in federal court.Taney's ruling suggests that African Americans and freed African Americans are not citizens and could never be citizens. This could cause a lot of tension and chaos moving forward.

Author: Pippa Rhodes]]> 2022-04-27 22:09:02 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2161150033 https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2161386175  The decision for the trial of Scott v Sandford has just been released! This case has polarized the country for weeks and a result has finally come. Dred Scott, a slave of John Sanford had filed for freedom after traveling with his former master, Dr. Emerson, to 2 free states. This case has been debated for months with Chief Justice Robert Taney presiding over this. To readers who have not familiarized themselves with this case, Dred Scott, a slave from Missouri, was taken with Emerson to live in Illinois and Minnesota, states where slavery was banned from the Missouri Compromise of 1820. In Minnesota, Scott and his family were sold to John Sandford who took them back to Missouri where Scott filed for freedom. Scott claimed that his family should be free because they had been in a free state and once a slave has been to a free state, they are legally a free man according to the State Constitution of Illinois. 
     Chief Justice Robert Taney has ruled that Dred Scott is not a free man and is still a slave. Taney ruled that Scott being in a free state does not mean he can be free. His ruling overturns the Missouri Compromise and rules it unconstitutional. His statement declares that under the 5th Amendment, slaves are considered property and will be considered property regardless of the state it is in. The ruling also prohibits states from banning slavery. Taney says that all people of African descent cannot be given citizenship because they are not included in the word citizens in the Constitution.  This case will make life much harder for African-Americans as they will have fewer liberties than they had before. The ruling deepens the divide between the North and the South and has heated the debate on slavery.

Author: Ethan Zhao


]]> 2022-04-28 02:08:07 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2161386175 https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2163065063    Dred Scott, an African American, is a slave for Dr. Emerson in Missouri. Along with Dred Scott is his wife and two children. Dr. Emerson took them to Rock Island, Illinois, which is a free state according to the Missouri Compromise. There they stayed for two years. Scott and his family then stayed in another free state, known as Minnesota, and was sold to Sanford, who Dred Scott sued. 
   Chief justice, Roger B. Taney, ruled that African Americans are in fact not U.S. citizens and were never intended to be. This means that Black people cannot claim any rights that are given to White people. Enslaved or free, African Americans are not counted as a member of society. It is also ruled that it is unconstitutional to take away slave property from a slaveholder. Even though Scott lived in a free state, he and his family are going to continue to be slaves.  

Author: Kerri Donaldson]]> 2022-04-28 17:37:20 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2163065063 https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2165540448 This all started with the slave Dred Scott, and his master, Dr. Emerson of Missouri. Dr. Emerson moved to Illinois and brought along Scott with him. A short time later, these two men moved to Minnesota. While Scott was in Minnesota, he met his wife, Harriet. They would later have two children. In Minnesota, Scott was sold to Sandford and they moved back to Missouri. Dred Scott was a free man, according to the Missouri Compromise, as Illinois and Minnesota are both free states. Also, Illinois' Constitution states that "once a free man, always a free man." This means that Scott and his family are legally free.

Chief Justice Robert Taney has made the ruling that Scott is still a slave, not a free man. Taney stated that even though Scott was in a free state, he is not a free man. Taney's ruling also ruled the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and prohibited states from banning slavery. Taney said that all African Americans can never and will never be able to be American citizens. This will make life so much harder for African Americans and will change their lives. They will have less freedom and this ruling will cause the debate on slavery to become even more heated.

Author: Jackson Juckett]]> 2022-05-01 00:48:53 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2165540448 https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2165766866 For those who may not know, Dred Scott is suing Stanford for his freedom. He says he had voluntarily been brought by his owner, Dr. Emerson, into a free state. Then, after two years, had voluntarily relocated to Fort Snelling with his owner, which is north of the 36'30 line. During the two years, he married a slave woman and had two children. He and his wife were sold to Stanford by their owners. Scott and his wife claim that they are considered free for their temporary residence in a free territory. 

Recently, the Missouri court ruled against Dred Scotts claims. It was decided that because Scott only had temporary residence on the ground, he was not free. The court said that Scott and his wife would only be considered free if their owners had intended to free them from slavery. It was also stated that Dred Scott was a slave and therefore  was not considered a citizen under the Constitution of the United States. Because he was not included as a citizen of the State of Missouri, he was not eligible to sue in the United States Court system. 

This ruling given by Chief Justice Taney means that all African Americans descendent of imported slaves, free or not, weren't to be included in the terms "people of the United States." For African Americans, this ruling meant that they would not be seen as legal citizen in government, even if they were free and living in a non-slave state.

Author: Halligan Bulthaus 


]]> 2022-05-01 13:04:35 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2165766866 https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2166192759 The case Scott v. Sandford started when Dred Scott, an African American, sued for his freedom. Dred Scott was born into slavery in Virginia. Soon after, Scott and his master, Peter Blow moved to Alabama, then Missouri. After his master died, Dr. John Emerson bought him, which eventually led him to be enslaved back in Missouri. Before, where they lived it was considered free territory. 

Dred Scott then filed a lawsuit for his freedom. Which Cheif Justice Roger Taney's decision was that Dred Scott and his family were still enslaved. He also stated that all African Americans, whether they were enslaved or not, were not U.S citizens. This meant that all African Americans in the U.S, even in a free state were not considered citizens.

Author: Sam Davidson]]> 2022-05-02 02:15:15 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2166192759 https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2166315758 Dred Scott was an African American man who was born into slavery in Virginia. After his first master died in 1832, Dr. John Emerson bought Scott and moved to fort snelling in the Wisconsin territory. when Emerson died, the ownership of Scott went to his wife who would not let Scott and his family go free. 

Scott sued for his freedom saying that since he was free when he was in a free state he should not become a slave when returning to a slave state. Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled against Scott making him still a slave. His ruling declared that all African Americans, enslaved or not, are not citizens of America.

Author:Sam Miraglia]]> 2022-05-02 05:11:16 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2166315758 https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2166937761 Dred Scott is suing Sandford because Sandford is taking away Dred Scott's freedom. Dred Scott was taken into a free state and then voluntarily went back to a slave state. He met and married his wife, an enslaved African American woman. They both ended up being sold to Sandford even though they were in a free state. They are suing Sandford for their freedom. 

Chief Justice Roger Taney decided that Dred Scott and his wife were still enslaved. Another point that came from this case was that African Americans were not American Citizens. The Missouri Compromise was deemed unconstitutional and stated that slavery could not be banned. For African Americans, this meant that slavery would not go away according to the law. 

Author: Dev Dalsania ]]> 2022-05-02 15:23:42 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2166937761 https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2166947796 A recently sold doctor's assistant named Dred Scott has decided to sue his new owner, Sandford, for his freedom! Scott says that since his previous owner brought him into free territories, he should be free. Additionally, he says that the fact he was forced to work in these free states for 2 years is another reason why he should be freed.

This lawsuit went all the way to the supreme court. Chief Justice Roger Taney decided that in fact, Scott was still a slave. He said that since African American slaves aren't citizens, he didn't even have the right to sue. This means that even free African Americans living in free states don't have their rights protected, and that all African Americans, no matter where they are, aren't even citizens. 

- Lawson Beaupre]]> 2022-05-02 15:30:01 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2166947796 https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2166955228 Dred Scott's case has inflicted a huge impact of Missouri Compromise. Scott was born a slave in Missouri. The Missouri Compromise declared Maine as a free state and accepted Missouri as a free state. Scott later resided in Illinois, a free state, from 1833 to 1843. Scott declared in a Missouri federal court that his residence in a free territory would make him a free man. Chief Justice Taney's opinion was that no black person could ever be free in America, especially if they were born into slavery. 

Taney declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. He held that any African American whose ancestors were imported to the U.S. and sold as slaves, whether eventually freed or not, couldn't be 'true citizens'. He also said that banning slavery anywhere was unconstitutional because of what it meant for farmers and plantation owners and how they profited from slavery. There's a great chance that Taney's declaration will be overruled because men of African descent have already acquired the right to vote in certain states: assumingly non-slave states.

Author: Leala Williams]]> 2022-05-02 15:34:45 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2166955228 https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2166971917 Recently, in Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court ruled that, "We think [African Americans] are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States." Dred Scott, an enslaved African, tried to sue because his previous owner had taken him into slavery-free territory. After his owner had died and he had been sold to Sandford, his current owner, he argued that he was a free man because he had gone into free lands.

Dred Scott lost the case because according to the Supreme Court, African Americans, free or otherwise, are not citizens of the United States and Slaves are nothing more than property. This means that free African Americans have little to no rights and even these rights will not be protected. The ruling of this case also said that the government could not ban slavery anywhere. This means that previously free states now can have slavery, setting back years of progress towards getting rid of slavery.

Author: Laila Vidal

]]> 2022-05-02 15:44:53 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2166971917 https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2166980091 This Scott v. Sanford case is a trial for the freedom of Dred Scott. Dred Scott was a slave of Dr. Emerson and as a slave from Missouri he was and they both moved to Illinois. After the move to Illinois, they both moved to Minnesota. Minnesota was a free state so, with this move, Scott would be a free man. Scott met his wife and had two children. At this time, Scott and his wife considered themselves free as they were in a free state and were under the impression of the "once free, always free" ruling meaning that they were legally free. 

The Missouri court ruled against that understanding of Scott and his wife. The ruling was that although he was in a free state, it was only a temporary residence. Along with that, since Dr. Emerson did not have the intention of free them that was the reason Scott was denied freedom. This ruling affects African Americans in huge ways. This ruling means that even if they are in the "free territory", that free territory will not be able to use its purpose if they are listed or under possession as a slave. The ruling of this, case will be a huge problem for any slaves and any pursuit of freedom for African Americans.

Author: Marlon Yates]]> 2022-05-02 15:49:51 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2166980091 sgrant261 https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2166985020             Dred Scott, a man born into slavery, is suing John F.A. Sandford for the freedom of his family and himself. He was first a slave of Peter Blow, and he was moved around from Alabama to Missouri to Illinois to Minnesota then back to Missouri. Based on the fact that he had lived in free-states for some time, he has the right to live freely. The judicial standard, "once free always free" applies in this. When his master moved to Fort Snellings, he had moved along with him, and with Minnesota being a free state, the Scotts deserved to be free and are according to the laws.

            The ruling said that as because of their race they were lesser than. Also, because they were "imported" they were not a citizen and had no right in court. This had taken a bit of a hit on the abolitionist movement, as this ruling had changed everything for the worse, elongating the path to freedom for all, which is the foundation of this country. It is possible that the ruling could be overruled, since African American men in free states have acquired the right to vote. The ruling means that across the country, free state or slave state, African Americans would not count as citizens, but as "property", which showcases how corrupted this country has became.

Written by Sam Grant


]]> 2022-05-02 15:52:55 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2166985020 https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2167013005 In the Scott v. Sandford case, African American Dred Scott is suing for his freedom. He was born into slavery in Virginia, and eventually ended up being bought by Dr. Emerson of Missouri. According to the Missouri Compromise, Dred Scott was a free man.

The case went to the Supreme Court and Dred Scott ended up losing. This is because African Americans were  considered property, not citizens of the United States. This could inspire other African Americans to stand up for themselves, and their freedom. 

Author: Landon Parrish

]]> 2022-05-02 16:10:29 UTC https://padlet.com/terlandson/wfozt4u5e4gwucpx/wish/2167013005