* Dred Scott was born into slavery in Missouri in 1799.
* In 1834, Scott was taken to Illinois, a free state, by his owner, Dr. John Emerson.
* Scott lived in Illinois for four years, during which time he married and had two children.
* In 1838, Emerson took Scott back to Missouri, a slave state.
* Scott sued for his freedom, arguing that he had become a free man by living in Illinois.
Sandford
* John F. A. Sanford was the defendant in the case.
* Sanford was a citizen of New York who had purchased Scott from Emerson in 1856.
* Sanford argued that Scott was still a slave, even though he had lived in Illinois, because Missouri law governed his status.
Opposing arguments
The legal question at issue in _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ was whether Scott was a free man or a slave. The opposing arguments centered on the following points:
* Missouri law vs. Illinois law: Scott argued that his status as a free man was determined by the laws of Illinois, where he had lived for four years. Sanford argued that Missouri law governed Scott's status, since he had been brought back to Missouri by his owner.
* The status of free blacks in Missouri: Missouri law did not explicitly legalize slavery, but it did not recognize free blacks as citizens. Scott's lawyers argued that this made it impossible for him to become a free man in Missouri, even if he had been legally emancipated.
* The Dred Scott decision: In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sanford, holding that Scott was not a citizen and therefore could not sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in the territories.
The _Dred Scott_ decision was highly controversial and further inflamed tensions between the North and the South. It contributed to the growing momentum for the abolitionist movement and is often cited as one of the causes of the Civil War.