Back to FlashcardsLaw / Dred Scott vs. Sandford Case
State level court decision
Tap or swipe ↕ to flip
Swipe ←→Navigate
1/7
Key Terms
Term
Definition
State level court decision
The Missouri court ruled against Dred Scott.
Supreme Court decision
The Supreme Court ruled against Dred Scott saying that the Constitution didn't intend for slaves to be freed and that the Missouri Compromise was unco...
Majority opinion
Dred Scott is still a slave
Dissenting opinion
Dred Scott should be freed.
Dred Scott vs Sandford
Slave Dred Scott sued his master because his master moved from slave territory to free territory. The Supreme Court ruled against Dred Scott, saying p...
Dred Scott
A black slave, had lived with his master for 5 years in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory. Backed by interested abolitionists, he sued for freedom on t...
Related Flashcard Decks
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
State level court decision | The Missouri court ruled against Dred Scott. |
Supreme Court decision | The Supreme Court ruled against Dred Scott saying that the Constitution didn't intend for slaves to be freed and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. |
Majority opinion | Dred Scott is still a slave |
Dissenting opinion | Dred Scott should be freed. |
Dred Scott vs Sandford | Slave Dred Scott sued his master because his master moved from slave territory to free territory. The Supreme Court ruled against Dred Scott, saying people have the right to control their property, which meant slavery could be allowed even in the northern free states. The court ruled against him in a 7-2 vote majority. |
Dred Scott | A black slave, had lived with his master for 5 years in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory. Backed by interested abolitionists, he sued for freedom on the basis of his long residence on free soil. The ruling on the case was that He was a black slave and not a citizen, so he had no rights. |
John F. A. Sanford | A slave owner. Dred Scott filed a case against him claiming that he was free. |