Scott vs Sanford

For my first moot court I represented John Sanford who was arguing to keep the rights to his property in his slave Dred Scott who was fighting for his freedom. Scott's team went first and cited many strong points. First off they cited a case from history where it was proven that once you are free, you are always free. They also pointed out that according to the Missouri compromise, Scott was being held in a territory was slavery was not legal. Finally that Dred Scott was never made aware of his rights while being held in this free territory. My team was up to speak, we really only needed to make two very simple points. First, the Missouri compromise was later deemed unconstitutional and therefore his right to freedom in those specific territories was not actually true. Secondly, and most importantly, according to the US government any man with full african descent was not a citizen of the United States. If you are not a citizen of the United States you can not sue for your freedom. Unfortunately, this would turn out to be case closed for Dred Scott and the supreme court did not grant him his freedom. So on March 6th 1857 was denied his freedom. This would affirm the right of slave owners to take their slaves into western territories without any consequence. According to the courts Dred Scott was property of his owner and could not be taken from his position as property without due process of law. This would go down as one of the most controversial and embarrassing cases our judicial system has ever faced.