The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision will always be remembered as a dull crossroad in America’s history. The Supreme Court administered a controversial matter and made the wrong choice. Scott v. Sandford represents what can happen when the Court sides with closely-held, personal convictions rather than what is genuinely right and constitutional. To completely comprehend the verdict of the court, it is necessary to be aware of the foundation of Scott v. Sandford. John Emerson owned Dred Scott as a slave of Missouri however because of military administration, Emerson and Scott traveled from Missouri to several free states and territories such as Illinois and Wisconsin. When Emerson passed away in 1843, Scott strived to end his slavery and buy his freedom from Emerson’s wife, who declined the offer. In the long run in 1846, with the assistance of abolitionist-lawyers, a lawsuit was filed by Dred Scott which was decided in 1857 that a slave who had dwelled in a free state and region where slavery was restricted was not along these lines qualified for his freedom and that blacks would never be granted citizenship for America. The tension regarding the issue of slavery increased after the Dred Scott Decision of 1857 was solidified. The Dred Scott Decision was a milestone case in which it drew a reasonable line of how the government felt regarding slavery. This decision largely affected our country. It made the power of slavery considerably more prominent. The Scott v. Sandford decision took a broken nation and separated it even more. The north declined to acknowledge the choice made by a Supreme Court they felt was brimming with individuals from the south, assuming the following actions were to make it so states were required by law to make slavery legal. According to our lecture on November 13th, 2017 regarding the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has a crucial part in establishing the law in the United States. Preferably, they are a political body that makes rulings by what they do believe is ethically right. It is cases similar to this, where with insight into the past we can obtrusively observe the Supreme Court ruled mistakenly, that raise worry about the weight put on these nine individuals, who do not need to worry about reelection. Their main purpose is to support the beliefs established in the Constitution. The Justices on the Scott v. Sandford court, enabled themselves to be excessively influenced by their very own assessments and not the words on the Constitution. On the off chance that the Supreme Court had administered diversely in Scott v. Sandford, America’s history would be totally different. The United States was without a doubt near war before the Supreme Court finalized the decision, yet Taney’s assessment separated the nation much further and expanded pressures between the north and south.