Who was dred scott? Why was he important to american history?

Question

Who was dred scott? Why was he important to american history?

Answer 1

Dred Scott (1799 – September 17, 1858), was a slave in the United States who sued unsuccessfully for his freedom in the famous Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1856. His case was based on the fact that he and his wife Harriet were slaves, but had lived in states and territories where slavery was illegal, including Illinois and Wisconsin, which was then part of the Illinois Territory. The court ruled seven to two against Scott, finding that neither he, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States, and that therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not affect his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, since reaching that result would deprive Scott's owner of his property.

Answer 2

Dred Scott is famous for the Dred Scott vs. Sanford case.  He was a slave suing for his freedom.  He lost the case because the court found that he nor his wife nor any person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the U.S. and therefore could not bring a case to court.

Answer 3

He was a slave who came to MN with his wife and is "owner" and stayed because Minnesota is/was a free state. He and his "owner" went to court and he lost and was taken back to Mississippi or missouri

Answer 4

google him if you want more accurate answers.

Answer 5

He was an African American slave born in Virginia in 1799.  There was a major court case about the violation of the Missouri Compromise in 1856.  The case was Dred Scott vs. Sandford in 1856.  His owner had moved to a nothern state and him and his wife were slaves in territories that slavery was illegal.  He was denied his freedom because he was not a citizen of the United States of America and his emancipation would cause his owner to lose property.  This angered many Northern Republicans and only contributed to the separation of the North and the South.

Answer 6

My ancestor Dred Scott was a black man enslaved by a whip cracking couple from one of the slave states. They were whip crackers against slavery. Yeah, what a paradox. Anyway, being they were against slavery they owned Dred and moved to Missouri (then a territory) which was supposed to be non-slaveholding. The slavemasters let Dred sue them for his freedom as a test case on property rights (Dred Scott v Sandford). The courts ruled against Dred, Chief Justice Taney saying. "A black man has no rights a white man is bound to respect." Taney was a real pig, just like  Scalia and Antonin and Thomas and whose the chief whip cracking justice now? Anyway, Dred Scott should have hung a thick green loogy on the Court like I did in the Bible, when I healed the blind man. It may have healed the court of its racism. But Dred's slavemsters loved him so much they freed him anyway and they all lived happily ever after just an Oprah Winfrey movie. (I took some literary license with this one, in case you couldn't tell.) Really, they set him loose.

Answer 7

He led a revolt.  Look him up.

Answer 8

he was a pirate, and he was important cause he beat up black beard and stole his gold, then he used that gold by melting it down, and building the statue of liberty for us, and also he built the empire state building from pure gold.

Answer 9

He was really important because he did his own research.

Answer 10

he was an african american who was a slave and travled to different states with his owner. his owner died while scott was in a free territory and went to court and pleaded for his freedom since he was in a free area. he was denied his freedom.

Answer 11

I don't normally recommended Wikipedia, but for this, it's OK.  The "Dred Scott decision" was a case that went through the courts up to the supreme court.  Dred Scott was a slave who was living with his wife in a free territory.  When his master wanted to take him back to a slave state, he sued for his freedom.  It won't surprise you to learn that he lost, and the decision meant that slaves were not citizens, but property.  Needless to say, this occurred shortly before the Civil War.  (This is a very brief, half-as*ed version--it will be very easy for you to find more complete information.)

Edit to "annoy" :  You should look it up.  I think you've confused Dred Scott with Nat Turner.

Answer 12

Magic of WIKI...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott

make sure you check it though.. sometime people make mistakes, so check other sources for accuracy.

Answer 13

he escaped from slavery aruged slave rights but he was sent back to his slave owner b/c he couldn't argue people rights b/c he wasnt a us citizen and he was considered property

check out wikipedia and google

my class at school  spent so much time on it

you could probably buy an a&E biography on it