The Dred Scott Decision

The Dred Scott v. Sanford case of 1857 came about from the slave Dred Scott trying to sue his former slave owner Mr. Emerson on account that he had to be free because he was being held in a free state in America. All of this began in 1846 where, Scott lost his initial lawsuit in St. louis district court but won his second only to be overturned by the supreme court of Missouri. In 1851 Dred Scott decided he wanted to sue again because of all the abolitionist's support. This time it was against John Sanford who was the executor of his estate. He eventually lost this case and wanted to take it to the supreme court for a decision.

The legal question that the supreme court was faced with was if a slave was residing in a free state where slavery is prohibited, is he able to be granted freedom? The two sides of the case that the supreme court had to ultimately weigh on was that Dred Scott did live on free soil where he could have claimed his freedom at any time but, he had not yet claimed his freedom until back in a slave state so what decision does that lead to?

The courts decision was ultimately that "slaves were not citizens of the United States and therefore had no right to sue in federal courts". Seven of the nine justices agreed with the decision which means the decision was mostly agreed upon. There explanation for the decision was that no slave or non citizen could sue in court so therefore Dred Scott's case had to be dropped.

https://www.biography.com/people/dred-scott-9477240

This source can be found to be credible due to it being a biography of Dred Scott as well as containing citations for its own content.

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

This source can be found to be credible due to being an encyclopedia with references to back up its own information.