Dred Scott v. Sandford

Dred Scott was a black slave born in Virginia owned by Peter Blow. In 1830, Blow moved to St. Louis where he sold Scott to Dr. John Emerson. Six years later, Emerson moved to the Wisconsin region (later will become Minnesota) for work purposes. Within a year, Emerson, was relocated back to St. Louis. He decide to leave his wife, Eliza Sandford along with all the slaves in the Wisconsin region. During this time, Sandford leased Scott and his newly-wedded wife out to others for their services. This violated the law as it went against the Missouri Compromise, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Wisconsin Enabling Act. Scott's wife gave birth to the first daughter in a free territory but did not choose to sue for their freedom yet. It wasn't until three years after the death of Emerson that Scott sued Sandford for his families freedom.

The case was first tried at the states court, where the state ruled in favor of Sandford. Scott sued again in federal court claiming he wants Missouri citizenship. His lawyers eventually appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that no African American can be granted citizenship regardless if they are a slave or not. With the ruling, the Court also deemed the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. The decision angered abolitionists, and only made tensions tighter between the North and South. The controversial case , was disputed up until the beginning of the Civil War.

I believe that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sandford because of the societal effects that would come about after if they ruled in favor of Scott. If the Court did in fact rule in favor of Scott, then they would have to re-adjust a lot of the laws surrounding slaves that were relocated to free states. If Scott won, it would encourage more slaves to start suing their owners for their freedom/citizenship. I think with the process of stare decisis the court made the correct decision for that time period.

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/dred-scott-case

I believe that this is a credible source because it was written by the history.com staff and it published within the past 10 years by A+E Networks, which is another credible source. What could possibly be a more credible source about history, than history.com itself?

https://www.britannica.com/event/Dred-Scott-decision

I believe that this is a credible source because it was last updated with the past 20 days, the author is the Professor of Law & Public Policy and Professor Emeritus of History at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), and the website has seven different editors.