Dred Scott v Sanford: Moot Court Case

          In class, we did a moot court case, reenacting and arguing the sides of the famous court case:

Dred Scott v Sanford. The Dred Scott side was arguing to prove that Scott was in fact a free man, 

while the Sanford side was arguing that he was to remain a slave under the control of his owners.

 This was a debate because Scott's former master, who had passed away, had traveled with him into 

the two free states Minnesota and Illinois, but then later returned to their slave state of Missouri. Then 

after his owner's death, Scott claimed that he was a free man now instead of becoming the slave of his 

former master's widow.

          The first side to argue was the Dred Scott side who made three arguments as to why he should 

be free. They used case precedent that once a slave is moved into a free state they remain a free 

person. They argued the "wine case" that once free, someone was always free. They said that the 

Missouri Compromise made slavery unconstitutional in the area that Dred Scott was living. Their 

final argument was made that there was no reason for Sanford wanting to keep Scott as a slave and 

was practicing "ignorance of the law".

          The second side to argue was the Sanford side who made four counterarguments as to why he 

should remain a slave. This side argued that the Missouri Compromise was overstepping and was 

therefore unconstitutional. We argued that Scott was a slave and therefore was property, meaning that 

he was not a citizen of the United States, and therefore had no right to sue under the law. We said that 

if the court were to take away Sanford's property, Scott would have to give something to Sanford as 

compensation, but he was never offering anything to her. And finally, the Fugitive Slave Law was 

used saying that the privileges and immunities were covered over the several states, he had to be 

returned even though he entered free land, and that he missed his chance to sue for his freedom when 

he was in the free state because he had already returned to the slave state.

          Just like the real life court case, the judge 

ruled in our favor, that Scott should remain a 

slave. He agreed that the Missouri Compromise 

was unconstitutional, the Fugitive Slave Law 

protected Sanford's slave as property, and that 

because he was property he was not a citizen

and could not sue.