LinkedIn emplea cookies para mejorar la funcionalidad y el rendimiento de nuestro sitio web, así como para ofrecer publicidad relevante. Si continúas navegando por ese sitio web, aceptas el uso de cookies. Consulta nuestras Condiciones de uso y nuestra Política de privacidad para más información.
LinkedIn emplea cookies para mejorar la funcionalidad y el rendimiento de nuestro sitio web, así como para ofrecer publicidad relevante. Si continúas navegando por ese sitio web, aceptas el uso de cookies. Consulta nuestra Política de privacidad y nuestras Condiciones de uso para más información.
Scott V Sandford<br />The Plaintiff<br />The Accused<br />
Dred Scott<br />Dred Scott was an African American slave claiming freedom from his possession under John Sanford.<br />Dred Scott sued John Sanford stating that he was a free citizen because he was living above the 36’30 parallel line in the state of Missouri.<br /> The Missouri Compromise Stated all African American slaves living above the 36’30 parallel were considered free.<br />
John Sandford<br />John Sandford was the owner of Dred Scott.<br />He argued that Scott was not U.S. citizen, because of the fact that he was not African American, which means he would not be allowed to sue him in the court of law.<br />
Summary<br /> The supreme court ruled that Dred Scott was guilty and was in favor of Sandford . The supreme court stated that Scott did not have the right to bring the case to trial at the U.S federal court because he was not a United States Citizen. Since Dred Scott had African ancestry he was not able to hold U.S. citizenship. Under this trial the Court ruled the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional because it would deprive Sandford of his legal property (Scott). This trial also helped lead to the creation of the 13th amendment (abolishing slavery), 14th amendment (granting former slaves citizen ship), and the 15th amendment (giving citizenship to any African American born in the United States.<br />