Dred Scott Decision

History18 CardsCreated 5 months ago

This flashcard deck covers the key aspects of the Dred Scott Decision, including the main figures involved, the court's decisions, and the broader implications for American history.

Who was Dred Scott?

A slave who went to court to sue for his freedom.
Tap or swipe ↕ to flip
Swipe ←→Navigate
1/18

Key Terms

Term
Definition
Who was Dred Scott?
A slave who went to court to sue for his freedom.
Why did Dred Scott sue for his freedom?
He was a slave who lived in both slave and free territories, so he believed he was entitled to be free.
What was the decision in the Dred Scott case?
At first, the Missouri court decided that Scott would become a free man, but the decision was later appealed and reversed. Finally, Scott went to the ...
Who was Roger B. Taney?
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court during the Dred Scott case.
Who was Emerson?
Emerson was an army surgeon and the second owner of Scott, who took him into free territories.
What were the three decisions that the Supreme Court had to consider in the Dred Scott case?
1. Whether African Americans were American citizens. 2. Whether living in a free territory for a time made a slave free. 3. Whether banning slavery in...

Related Flashcard Decks

Study Tips

  • Press F to enter focus mode for distraction-free studying
  • Review cards regularly to improve retention
  • Try to recall the answer before flipping the card
  • Share this deck with friends to study together
TermDefinition
Who was Dred Scott?
A slave who went to court to sue for his freedom.
Why did Dred Scott sue for his freedom?
He was a slave who lived in both slave and free territories, so he believed he was entitled to be free.
What was the decision in the Dred Scott case?
At first, the Missouri court decided that Scott would become a free man, but the decision was later appealed and reversed. Finally, Scott went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled against him and stated that slaves were property and did not have rights.
Who was Roger B. Taney?
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court during the Dred Scott case.
Who was Emerson?
Emerson was an army surgeon and the second owner of Scott, who took him into free territories.
What were the three decisions that the Supreme Court had to consider in the Dred Scott case?
1. Whether African Americans were American citizens. 2. Whether living in a free territory for a time made a slave free. 3. Whether banning slavery in the Louisiana Purchase was constitutional.
What was the final decision on those three issues?
1. African Americans were not American citizens. 2. Living in a free territory does not make a slave free. 3. Banning slavery in the Louisiana Purchase (Missouri Compromise) was unconstitutional.
When did the Dred Scott case reach the Supreme Court?
1856
How did Northerners react to the Dred Scott case?
They feared that a future court ruling would allow the expansion of slavery.
How did Southerners react?
They were happy because they supported the idea of keeping slaves as property rather than treating them as equal citizens.
How did this court ruling help push the Civil War?
It increased tensions between the North and South, as both sides had opposing views on slavery.
Who wrote the majority opinion on the Dred Scott case?
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
What was the split decision?
7–2
Who was originally supposed to write the majority decision?
Justice Nelson was originally supposed to write the majority decision.
Why was the Dred Scott decision important?
The Dred Scott v. Sandford case (1857) was the most significant slavery-related decision in Supreme Court history. It aimed to maintain a balance of power between slave and free states by influencing how new states would be admitted to the Union.
Who received Scott after Emerson's death?
Emerson’s wife inherited the slaves and later gave the Scott family to her brother, John Sanford.
Why didn’t Scott become free to start off with?
The original Missouri court decision that granted his freedom was appealed and overturned, denying his request.
What was Sanford’s argument in the case?
A person’s property cannot be taken away without due process.