Dred Scott v. Sandford: Landmark Supreme Court Case

Dred Scott V. Sandford

BY: JACK COOL

Background



Dred Scott was a slave in

Missouri.



From 1833-1843 he lived in

Illinois, a free state where

slavery was forbidden by the

Missouri Compromise



Scott claimed that since he

lived in a free state for a

period of time, he was a free

man

Case Facts



The case lasted from 1856-1857



Most argued that a black man

could not be an American citizen

and therefore could not sue in court



It was ruled that the Missouri

Compromise was unconstitutional

and that any law depriving a citizen

of their property was

unconstitutional



In March of 1857, the Supreme

Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Sandford

Resources



https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393



https://ballotpedia.org/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Slide Note

Embed Share

Download

Dred Scott, a slave who lived in free states, sued for his freedom in 1856. The Court's ruling denied his citizenship and upheld slavery. Explore the case facts and its impact on American history.

maia Follow

Uploaded on Aug 19, 2024 | 0 Views

Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

Dred Scott V. Sandford BY: JACK COOL

Background Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833-1843 he lived in Illinois, a free state where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise Scott claimed that since he lived in a free state for a period of time, he was a free man

Case Facts The case lasted from 1856-1857 Most argued that a black man could not be an American citizen and therefore could not sue in court It was ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that any law depriving a citizen of their property was unconstitutional In March of 1857, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Sandford