Dred+Scott+Decision

Dred Scott Decision In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled against a slave who had sued for his freedom based on the fact that he had lived in a free state. The court ruled that blacks could never be citizens, and thus did not have the right to bring lawsuits in court, and also that the federal government could not legislate slavery in the territories. Was the sweeping opinion: • A necessary attempt to settle the debate over slaves' rights and the expansion of slavery once and for all? (PRO) • A case in which the court overstepped its bounds in ruling on wider issues of slavery rather than limiting its decision to the case at hand? (CON)

pro: The slave brings a good reason because Dred Scott was in a free state when he got traded

CON:He was never a free citizen, but a "sojourner" in a Illinoise, so he shouldn't have been given any rights

pro:After his master died and he got traded he went into a free state so that means he is free its just like when slaves ran to the north.After they went to the north they became free

CON:He was free according to Illinoise law, which does not have more power than Missouri law - they are on equal footing.

pro: If you look in the document it clearly says that the mossouri compromise was uncostitutional and that slavery can not be chosen in states by congress

CON: If the Missori Compromise was unconstitutional, then congress did NOT have the right to decide what states could be slavery. You are going against your own argument. I'm done.