The Scott vs. Sandford case was an extremely historical event in the United States because this was the first time a slave tried to sue his owner for his freedom. Like every other court case in the U.S. there was the Defendant, the Plaintiff, and the Judge. The issue was brought to court by the plaintiff, Dred Scott, a slave with a wife and two daughters, who argued that his service for his first owner, Dr. Emerson, in Illinois, a state from which slavery has been excluded by the Missouri Compromise, made him a free man with full rights as any other American citizen. But Dred didn’t stay in Illinois, he returned with his owner, Dr. Emerson, to Missouri where Plaintiff was sold to Sandford, the defendant in this case. Dred sued Sandford for his freedom, claiming to be a citizen of the United States. John Sandford, a slave owner in the 1800’s was also accused of beating his slave family for no reason and depriving Dred and his family of their liberty; Dred considering himself a citizen of the United States. The third important person in this case was the Chief Justice, which was judge Roger B. Taney. Both sides had laws to back their sides. Missouri for example has laws banning slavery in their state, so Dred Scott is basing his case on that fact. He also sued the United States for his freedom, claiming to be a citizen of Missouri, based on having obtained freedom by living there, in a free state, for a long period of time. In court, Sandford which was represented by The United States, denied the violent actions and said that he did not beat his slaves he just handled them in a firm but gentle way. He also argued Dred is still a slave because he was born and bought in the south and was considered property. Since he was moved as property to the North his status of property couldn't change. Another problem Dred had to face because he was considered property was the fact that he couldn’t bring issues to court. Based on the way they were thinking back
