jan 1, 1857 - Dred Scott v. Sanford

Description:

[1857]

SUPREME COURT DECISION: 7-2

context: dred scott was a slave who lived with his matter in free territories (Illinois & Wisconsin)
after returning to missouri (a free state), he sued for his freedom, arguing that free soil made him free
> went all the way to the Supreme Court, which was then dominated by pro-slavery Southern justices

court decision? 7-2
three reasons (delivered by court)
1. scott had no right to sue
- african americans (free or enslaved) were not US citizens, and therefore couldn't sue in court
2. living in a free territory didn't make him free
- slaves were considered property
3. congress had no power to ban slavery in the territories
- the missouri compromise was ruled unconstitutional

effects:
- massive backlash in the north
- southern slaveholders cheered
- republican party gained strength
- deepened sectional divide & helped trigger the civil war

sanford: just dred scott's slave master's brother-in-law (dw abt it)

Added to timeline:

Date: