In the Court case Dread Scott V. Sanford there were many compelling arguments for both sides. Attorney Jack Bridgeport representing Sanford stated that under law Dread Scott was not looked at as a citizen so it did not matter that he was in a free state it did not apply to him because he was property. Also pointed out by Sanford lawyer is that Dred Scott did not sue while he was in a free slave he sued once he was back in a slave sates after his master passed away. Dread Scott respected his first owner but did not feel the same way about Sanford. Sanfords lawyers case was very strong against Dred Scott.
Representing Dred Scott attorney Joseph Reyes stated that the Missouri comprise was in affect which made slavery illegal so that meant Dred Scott should be a free man. Another argument brought up in the court case was the fact that free states should not have to abide by the law of a state that was pro slavery. All arguments were heard by the honorable Dean Smith. After reviewing all the facts Sanford won the case the government can not take someone's property and that is what Dread Scott was to Sanford.
I would recommend spelling Dred Scott's name properly as that would be very helpful to the context of latter times with racial figures driving the changing ways of segregation. But nevertheless, this article clearly depicts the argument of Dred Scott vs. Sanford and the differences of the definition of property and what it means to people versus the government.
ReplyDelete