Dred Scott vs Sandford
By Colten Kersky
What was the Dred Scott case about?
Dred Scott was a slave that ended up in the North with his master, but Scott claimed that since he was in a free state that he was a free man. He brought his master into a court case that would eventually be brought up to the Supreme Court, to get a final rule. Supreme Court Judge, John Sandford was the one to make a final ruling on Scotts claim that he was a free man. Sandford said that he was not, and that he still must remain a slave. His reasoning behind this was that, in Sandfords mind, Scott was just a piece of property that was owned by his master. This started much controversy because it gave off the message that slavery would be allowed anywhere.
This is a painted portrait of Dred Scott
How Did The Case Affect the North and South?
A cause of the case, and the fact that Dred Scott lost it gave the impression to the south that slavery would be accepted anywhere, and that they wouldn't be jailed for having a slave of their own in the north. This made tensions rise greatly, and caused issues between the North and South. This would further lead to the succession of the south and become the confederate states.
A portrait of John Sandford
How did the Trial Effect our Modern Country?
Since the case gave the impression to the South that slavery would legally be accepted anywhere. After this several other factors were included, but this event pushed the south to break away, and create the Confederate States. The Confederate States and the North would eventually go into the Civil War. Without the Dred Scott case there is a chance that the Confederate wouldn't have happened, and the Civil War may have never happened. If the Civil War had never happened our country could still be a country of slavery, and segregation. There are lots of maybes, but without the trial, our country truly could be a different place.
Red are Slave States, and Green are Free States
Overall I think that Sandford made a very biased decision in the case, and I believe that since he was for slavery, that he made that decision. If the judge making the ruling had been a different person, the case could have gone in a different direction. Dred Scott got the very unfair, and unnecessary part of the deal, and since the law in the area that he was in said that slavery was illegal, he should have been given the ruling that he was a free man, and not a slave.
The Dred Scott Case