Dred Scott v SandfordFacts of the Case: • Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From

1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) and in an area of the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

• After returning to Missouri, Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man.

• Scott then brought a new suit in federal court.

• Scott's master maintained that no pure-blooded Negro of African descent and the descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution.

Dred Scott v Sandford• Question: • Was Dred Scott free or slave?

Dred Scott v Sandford

• Conclusion: (Majority Opinion)•

– Under Articles III and IV• No one but a citizen of the US could be a citizen of a state,

and only Congress could confer national citizenship• No person descended from an American slave had ever

been a citizen for Article III purposes

•

• Hoped to end the slavery question once and for all

continued....

Dred Scott v Sandford• Decision:

–

• He is

• and can be taken anywhere

John Brown’s Raid on John Brown’s Raid on Harper’s Ferry, 1859Harper’s Ferry, 1859

•Brown a radical Brown a radical abolitionistabolitionist

•He plans to rob the arsenal He plans to rob the arsenal at to start at to start a slave revolutiona slave revolution

•

•Southerners believe Southerners believe NORTHERNERS support NORTHERNERS support BROWN!BROWN!

John Brown’s Raid on John Brown’s Raid on Harper’s Ferry, 1859Harper’s Ferry, 1859

•Brown a radical Brown a radical abolitionistabolitionist

•He plans to rob the arsenal He plans to rob the arsenal at to start at to start a slave revolutiona slave revolution

•

•Southerners believe Southerners believe NORTHERNERS support NORTHERNERS support BROWN!BROWN!

“John Brown’s Fort”

John Brown: Madman, Hero or Martyr?

John Brown: Madman, Hero or Martyr?