'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal;
If the Declaration of Independence is saying this then we have to put all races on equal field but clearly the United states at that time didn't do that so it showed even the citizens weren't following the foundation which the United States stands on.
the plaintiff in error could not be a citizen of the State of Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its courts.
I disagree with this because in my opinion if said person is living in the untied states, obeying law and the Constitution and like Dred Scott was in a free state at some point you should be seen as equal.
It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution
I agree with this because if a state can make laws and do as they please it would give them to much power and then the point of the united states is throw out the window.
he question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen?
I believe that a person imported to this country as a slave should have a right to citizenship no matter what because they were bought to this country as a worker. But if we are talking about the time if said person was to be brought to a state where slaves are free like Dred Scott he then should be seen as a free man and a citizen.
That plea denies the right of the plaintiff to sue in a court of the United States
They couldn't sue because of their status in the United States. I believe this is wrong because they were once in a slave free state so they should have been seen as equal and allowed.
The defendant pleaded in abatement to the jurisdiction of the court, that the plaintiff was not a citizen of the State of Missouri, as alleged in his declaration, being a negro of African descent, whose ancestors were of pure African blood, and who were brought into this country and sold as slaves
They weren't citizens so they couldn't sue in court. I disagree with this because they are still people living in the united states so they should have the right a protection of the Constitution and laws.
the said Harriet, wife of said Dred Scott, and Eliza and Lizzie, the daughters of the said Dred Scott, were negro slaves, the lawful property of the defendant.'
I disagree with this because they were in a slave free state so them being in that state should have made them free.
In the year 1834, the plaintiff was a negro slave belonging to Dr. Emerson, who was a surgeon in the army of the United States. In that year, 1834, said Dr. Emerson took the plaintiff from the State of Missouri to the military post at Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, and held him there as a slave until the month of April or May, 1836.
Dr. Emerson took Dred Scott to a free state which means in that state Dred Scott isn't a slave. I disagree that Dred Scott was kept a slave during that time because it was against State law to have slaves.