Dred Scott v. Sanford Lesson

Dred Scott v. Sanford Lesson

A Supreme Court Case over slavery.

Bell Ringer: With a neighbor, discuss the roles of slaves in American society.

You have 2 mins.

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

A southern slave, Dred Scott was taken by his owner to the North and then back into slavery in the South. Scott sued for his freedom. Having been on free soil, he argued that he could not be taken back into slavery.

What do you think?

Do you agree with Scott or not?

Decision/ Significance:

• Chief Justice Roger Taney stated that because Scott was a "descendant of African born slaves", that he was declared to be a non-citizen, and there for was not allowed to bring a law suit to the supreme court.

Taney also stated that

• Africans could never become U.S citizens since they were not included in the U.S Constitution.

• That slaves were property, not people

• Congress had no right to take away a slave holder's property.

• And because slavery was still legal, the Missouri Compromise and any other bans on slavery are unconstitutional

What do you think the impact of this decision will be?

Discuss with a neighbor.

Chief Justice Taney's ruling meant that

• Slavery could spread

• This worried people in the North who had not had slavery for a very long time.

• It also increased tensions between the North and the South.

• The decision questioned Congress' ability to control the spread of slavery.

Dropdown

Dred Scott was a ​ ​

Select answer

who traveled to the ​

Select answer

with is owner. He then sued for his​

Select answer

because he was in free territory.

Hotspot

Identify the state in which Dred Scott originally lived in.

Hotspot

Identify the 2 states Dred Scott traveled to with his slaveholder.

Drag and Drop

Chief Justice ​

Placeholder

was a supporter of the ​

Placeholder

.

Drag these tiles and drop them in the correct blank above

Roger Taney

South

North

John Marshall

Abe Lincoln

abolitionists movement

Match

Match the following

• Abolitionists

• Prohibited

• Unconstitutional

• citizenship

• Sectionalism

Wanted to abolish slavery

not allowed

not allowed due to not abiding by the Constitution of the US

belonging to or being a member of a particular country,

being more loyal to a part of the country rather than the country as a whole

• Wanted to abolish slavery

• not allowed

• not allowed due to not abiding by the Constitution of the US

• belonging to or being a member of a particular country,

• being more loyal to a part of the country rather than the country as a whole

Multiple Select

What was the decision made in Dred Scott v. Sandford? Choose all that apply.

• Slaves were not citizens and could not sue due to not having citizenship.

• Slaves were property not people.

• Congress had no right to take away a slaveholders property.

• All bans on slavery were unconstitutional.

• Congress create laws to stop the spread of slavery in the new territories.

Multiple Select

What did this ruling mean for the future of the U.S? Choose all that apply?

• Slavery could spread anywhere in the U.S

• Increased sectionalism between the North and the South

• Questioned Congresses ability to control the spread of slavery.

• Questioned the citizenship of all American citizens

• Made the West not available for plantation style agriculture.