What was the issue and result of Dred scott?

Answer 1

Now for an answer from someone that actually knows what they are talking about:

1. Dred Scott was taken from Missouri (a slave state) into two free TERRITORIES (Wisconsin and Minnesota--where he lived for a few years.)
2. Ypon his return his master (Emerson) died and he was sold to another man (Sanford). But this raised the question: Was a slave still a slave if they were taken into a territory in which slavery was banned according to the terms of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787?
3. The case finally made it to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 and Chief Justice Roger Taney (to rhyme with Connie) ruled the following:
a. Blacks (free or slave) were not citizens and hence could not sue in federal court
b. Blacks had no rights that a white man was bound to honor
c. No state could prevent slavery from entering its borders under the terms of the 5th Amendment.

The result was that the North began ignoring the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and openly began helping slaves escape into Canada whenever possible. The Dred Scott decision was one of the leading factors to the outbreak of fighting in the Civil War in April of 1861.


And there you have it.

Answer 2

Ooh. I remember writing a 4 page essay on Dred Scott. There were many issues. One of them was whether slavery should be prohibitted on or off certain territories. The result was that he was free, but it was unfair because he had to go through a lot of trials because of judge Trudy. Trudy declared that it was not right for Scott to be free even though Scott was on a free-slave territory because Scott was born on a slave territory and that scott has no right as a citizen to declare a trial. Trudy believes that all blacks have no knowledge and citizen rights. Yeah, if you need more help or some of my essay examples, just email me or something! =)

Answer 3

I have a question for Mr. Curious about something said in his reply...

How does the 5th Amendment - the one that protects you against self-incrimination - apply to slavery and the Dred Scott decision?

Answer 4

The issue was that his owner was living in a free state and he had died so the Dred thought that he was free because he was living in a free state.The result was that he was taken back into slavery and was not a free man.

Answer 5

Dredd Scott was a slave who traveled with his ownerinto a free state (Wisconsin, I believe) and back to a slave state (Missouri). When his owner died, he sued for his freedom, claiming that upon entering Wisconsin, he became free. The Supreme Court ruled that he wasn't a citizen and couldn't bring suit. Also, according to the constitution, one state has to abide by the laws of another state (That's why you don't need a new driver's liscence in every state you visit) so he would remain a slave even if the court had had jurisdiction.

I hope that helped.

Answer 6

go to this site for details: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html
but generally, Dred Scott was a slave who was taken by his owner to a "free" state. After several owners, who died, Scott tried to purchase his freedom but he was refused. He went to court to sue for his freedom, because he was in a free state, and the owner who brought him there had long since died.

After a win, where he and his family were freed, the supreme court of Missouri reversed the decision and returned the family to slavery. In 1854 the decision was upheld by the US Circuit Court in Missouri, and in 1856 again by the Supreme Court of the US. Seven of these men were apponted by pro-slavery presidents.

Not one of the best moments in our history.

Answer 7

issue was what to do about runaway slaves. the result was slave hunters couldn't demand they go back south. thaat is the short story.

Answer 8

he wanted to be free because his owner had bought him to a free state.
i think he won the second time