How did the Dred Scott decision reverse a previous decision made by Congress?

Answer 1

The Dred Scott decision nullified the Missouri Compromiseof 1920 that Congress had brokered to reduce tensions between the pro-slavery states and the anti-slavery states. The Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery above the 36°30′ north parallel (latitude), which was approximately the southern border of the future state of Missouri. In the compromise, the proposed state of Missouri was an exception because it was above the 36th parallel but would be allowed to enter the Union as a slave state. The rest of the territory belonged to the federal government, but the "free state" agreement was intended to apply not only on federal land, but in any states created from that that territory.

Chief Justice Roger Taney declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, holding Congress had overstepped its authority in forging agreements that would be binding on future states. Taney said Congress could make anti-slavery laws for US Territories, but the states had the sovereign authority to decide whether to allow slavery within their borders.

"Congress have no right to prohibit the citizens of any particular State or States from taking up their home there while it permits citizens of other States to do so. Nor has it a right to give privileges to one class of citizens which it refuses to another. The territory is acquired for their equal and common benefit, and if open to any, it must be open to all upon equal and the same terms."

By "all" Taney primarily meant white men, because they held most of the real estate and personal property at that time. He stated, "The Constitution of the United States recognises slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind."

He further stated that the "once free, always free" doctrine that allowed slaves living in free states to be emancipated permanently violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by depriving the slave owners of their property without due process or compensation.

"The act of Congress, therefore, prohibiting a citizen of the United States from

taking with him his slaves when he removes to the Territory in question to reside is an exercise of authority over private property which is not warranted by the Constitution, and the removal of the plaintiff by his owner to that Territory gave him no title to freedom."

These words had a profound impact on the states, because not only did the Supreme Court hold the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, it also prevented "free states" from depriving slaveholders of their slaves, which were deemed property under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. Thus, no slave could claim freedom under the informal "once free, always free doctrine."

The most infamous ruling in the Dred Scott case was that Scott was not and never could be a citizen of a state; therefore, he could never be a citizen of the United States. As such, Scott lacked standing to sue for his freedom and the courts were enjoined from granting freedom simply because he had lived in a free state.

The Court overreached its authority by nullifying the Missouri Compromise, however, because once Taney determined Scott (the petitioner) was merely property and had no standing to bring a case, the Court lost jurisdiction and could not use judicial review to overturn the Congressional act. Article III of the Constitution limits the Judicial Branch to rendering decisions about cases and controversies. If Scott lacked standing to sue, everything else related to the case should have been rendered moot.

The 13th Amendment overturned Dred Scott, making slavery unconstitutional and making citizens of former slaves. This also undercut Taney's decision about the Missouri Compromise. The Fourteenth Amendment reopened the question about Congress' right to pass certain legislation affecting the states.

Case Citation:

Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393 (1857)

Answer 2

Yes. Chief Justice Roger Taney declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional because he thought Congress had overstepped its authority by trying regulate slavery in the states. This was in keeping with another part of the Dred Scott decision that held slaves were the property of their owners (not citizens), and it was therefore unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment to deprive an owner of his property without Due Process of law.

Case Citation:

Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393 (1857)

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 3

The Dred Scott case nullified the Missouri Compromise.