Dred+Scott+v.+Sanford,+1857++Kansas-Nebraska+Act,+1854

=
It was a decision by the [|United States Supreme Court] that ruled that people of African descent [|imported into the United States] and held as [|slaves], or their descendants—whether or not they were slaves—were not legal persons and could never be [|citizens] of the [|United States], and that the [|United States Congress] had no authority to prohibit [|slavery] in federal [|territories]. The Court also ruled that slaves [|could not sue] in court, and that slaves—as [|chattel] or private property—could not be taken away from their owners without due process. The Court in the Dred Scott decision sided with [|border ruffians] in the [|Bleeding Kansas] dispute who were afraid a free [|Kansas] would be a haven for runaway slaves from [|Missouri]. The Supreme Court's decision was written by [|Chief Justice] [|Roger B. Taney].=====

=
Dred Scott was indirectly overruled in the [|Slaughter-House Cases], which noted that Dred Scott's holding was superseded by the passage of the [|Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution] in 1865, which abolished slavery, and the [|Fourteenth Amendment] in 1868, which guaranteed full rights and citizenship regardless of race. Though it is sometimes said that Dred Scott was never officially overruled, the Slaughter-House Cases did note that the post-Civil War [|Fourteenth Amendment] (and thus enacted after the Dred Scott case) had overruled it, although the Court was merely noting the fact that Dred Scott had already been overruled by the amendment; it was not the Court that overruled Dred Scott, but Congress and the states:=====

=
The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.=====

=
There were many reasons for the action taken on the Dred Scott v. Sanford case. First off, this case was taken to the supreme court in 1857 because at this time, slavery was in full force in the southern section of the United States of America. Also during this time period there were many controversies over which states allowed to have slavery or not. Because Dred Scott was traveling to so many different states while traveling with his owner, Dr. Emerson, it caused much controversy during the trial, making him lose his case because he could not prove that he was not a slave. This case was brought about because Scott was technically a slave while he was being transported with his “master” but was in non slave states (Illinois and Territory of Wisconsin) while en route.=====

=
As the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford continued through the Missouri state court houses eventually to the supreme court, there were many controversial issues that arose. The main issue that arose was whether or not Dred Scott was a free person or slave belonging to his owner. This issue came about because Scott was in non slave states while being transported with his owner Dr. John Emerson. Dred Scott argued that he was a free person because slaves in non-slaves states were considered to be free people according to Missouri state laws. But Missouri Chief Justice Hamilton Rowan Gamble was introduced to the case that caused a conflict of interest between Dred Scott and Sanford because he was obviously for slavery because he personally owned slaves.=====

=
The significance of the Dred Scott decision is that it comes in the wake of Bleeding Kansas, it comes years after the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The country has now struggled for years to understand the implications of popular sovereignty in the West and how the West would be settled, free or slave. And now this case of old Dred Scott finally gets to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court says not only did Dred Scott not have the right to even sue in a federal court because he's black and not a citizen, but it goes one step further. It goes for a much broader decision, and in Chief Justice Taney's words, blacks had no rights which whites had to recognize. Also, this case was a major factor for westward expansion and which territories or states would be free or slave states.=====

=
After researching the Dred Scott v. Sanford supreme court case, I would personally put this case as 30 on a 1 to 100 scale one being the most important. This ranks a 30 because obviously there have been many more important documents and cases in American History. This ranks a 30 because it helped decide whether or not states would become a free or slave state during westward expansion toward the Pacific coast. Also, this case helped shape the minds of other slaves as well as free blacks in American society.=====

=
Between the Dred Scott v. Sanford and Articles of Agreement Regarding the Surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia there is only one similarity between these. These two have the fact that they both had to deal with civil rights and the division of the country based on slavery. These two documents have many differences rather than similarities. One difference between these two is that the supreme court case deals with whether Dred Scott was a free person or a owned slave and the Surrendering of the Northern Virginian Army is dealing with the whole entire issue of slavery rather than focusing on one small part of it. Overall these two documents are fairly similar to each other but also having differences with each other. Personally I believe that the Dred Scott v. Sanford supreme court case is more important than the Surrendering of the Northern Virginian Army because the court case set a principle during the civil war era by making all black slaves non citizens of the United States so It would not happen again.=====