Sandford. Case & determine why it is considered a landmark Supreme court Case. Dred Scott v. . Sandford. Do Now. How did the Kansas-Nebraska Act affect the Missouri Compromise (Compromise of 1820)?. ID: 735850
DownloadNote - The PPT/PDF document "SWBAT: Analyze the Dred Scott v." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
SWBAT: Analyze the Dred Scott v. Sandford Case & determine why it is considered a landmark Supreme court Case
Dred Scott v.
How did the Kansas-Nebraska Act affect the Missouri Compromise (Compromise of 1820)?
Was Illinois a free or slave state?
Was Missouri a free or slave state?Slide3
Roger B. Taney
1836: Chief Justice John Marshall died
Jackson replaced him with Roger B. Taney (The Taney Court)
Born into Maryland tobacco family that owned many slaves
Served as U.S. Attorney General and Secretary of the TreasuryDemocratSlide4
a slave in Virginia in
old to his owner, a Missouri plantation owner
his owner’s death
in 1832, Scott was transferred to the ownership of Dr. John Emerson, an army surgeonEmerson brought Scott back with him to the free State of IllinoisSlide5
Questions before the Court:Could a black person be a citizen and therefore sue in federal court?
Did residence in a free state make Scott free?
Did Congress possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory?
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Landmark Supreme Court decision
Question: The Right to Freedom of Enslaved Persons
Read “Supreme Court Case Study: Dred Scott v.
” TWICEAnswer the “Case Analysis Questions” as a groupResponses go on your notesheetSlide7
As a class, review case analysis questionsSlide8
Dred Scott v. Sandford
“The African race in the united states even when free, are everywhere a degraded class, and exercise no political influence. The privileges they are allowed to enjoy, are accorded to them as a matter of kindness and benevolence rather than right…They are not looked upon as citizens by the contracting parties who formed the Constitution. They were evidently not supposed to be included by the term citizens.”
~Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney
7-2, Scott had no right to sue for his
This should have ended here, but
Taney’s Opinion of the CourtCongress possessed no power under the Constitution to bar slavery from a territoryThe Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional
Any prohibition of slave expansion into a territory was unconstitutional
In essence, popular sovereignty was undermined since the Kansas-Nebraska Act was an act of Congress
OLD multiple choice practice:
Which of the following was NOT a result or consequence of the Dred Scott decision of 1857?
Free states in the North saw the need to speak politically with one voice
Congress has no right to restrict slavery in the territories
The Fugitive Slave Act
The Democratic party became divided along sectional linesSlide11
The Road to Disunion and the Election of 1860
White watching the video clip:
rite down 3 new pieces of information you learn.Write down 2 pieces of information you already knew.Ask a question.
Today's Top Docs