Name:Professor:Class:Date:Dred Scott vs. Sanford caseIntroductionIn the 1950s, the conflicts over the extension of slave trade and slavery in the western parts posed significant threats that could divide the nation. The balance between the slave states and the Free states was destroyed by the Nebraska Act of 1854, which brought major problems in Missouri. The congress was significantly divided on the issue of slavery, which influenced the Supreme Court to listen to the case of a fugitive slave who wanted to be granted his freedom. It was expected that the Supreme Court would stabilize the nation but the ruling it gave divided the nation further almost leading to a civil war. In his tenure as Chief Justice, John Marshall strongly advocated for a powerful national government. He died in 1835 and Roger B. Taney was appointed as the new Chief Justice. Roger B. Taney advocated for dual sovereignty in which the federal and state governments were foreign to each other. Dred Scott argued that stepping in the free state of Illinois made him a free man while Stanford argued that giving a slave the right to freedom deprived a property owner (a slave owner) the right to utilize property. The Chief Justice supported slavery and ruled in favor of the widow of John Emerson who was the master to Dred Scott. The decision of the court led to mixed reactions among the people in the United States and was a major factor influencing the civil war. This research paper is an analysis of Dred Scott vs. Sanford case, the contents of the case, the incidence s leading to the case, the verdict of the Supreme Court on the case, and declaration of Chief Justice Roger B that only the Whites could be the citizens of the United States. Dred Scott vs. Sanford caseWhat the Case isDred Scott was a slave in Missouri. It was a time when slavery and slave trade were allowed in the United States. A slave could be owned and sold like any other property. In addition, a person owning a slave had the right to do anything to the slave without being questioned. Slaves did not have human rights. Dred Scott was sold to John Emerson who was an army surgeon. In 1833, Dred Scott was transferred to Illinois, which was a free state. After the death of John Emerson in 1843, Dred Scott sued his widow for his freedom in the supreme court of Missouri (Supreme Court Cases 1). He argued that the free soil of Illinois made him a free person. He was defeated in the state courts and hence made a decision to sue in the local federal court. His case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court 11 years after the initial suit. The argument of Dred Scott was that when a person entered a new territory, the free state of such a territory overrides the previous status of slavery. In this regard, he claimed to be set free since he was now in the free state of Illinois. On the other hand, it was argued that depriving a person the right to property (a slave) was against the Fifth Amendment that stated that no federal or ...