What was the effect of the Dred Scott decision on the North?

Answer 1

After the Court ruled that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. Opponents of slavery pinned their hopes on the Republican Party. For the reason if the Republican Party became strong enough, they could still keep slavery in check.

Answer 2

The Northern abolitionists (those who opposed slavery and wanted it outlawed) were outraged at the Supreme Court's decision that slavery was protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, and also by their suggestion that African-Americans had no right of citizenship or access to the courts.

Northerners objected to the Supreme Court decision for a number of reasons:

1. The Court held that "A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States." As a result, African-Americans were unable to claim state citizenship anywhere within the United States. This revoked their right to sue for freedom in any court, a practice that had been a critical and somewhat successful way for slaves who had lived in "free" states to become emancipated under the "once free, always free" doctrine.
2. The Court also abolished the "once free, always free" standard, replacing it with a concept more akin to "once enslaved, always enslaved" when it labeled slaves chattel (property), giving owners Fifth Amendment (Taking Clause) protection.
3. The Court declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation that sought to prevent the establishment of slave-holding states in the western and northwestern territories, unconstitutional. According to Chief Justice Taney, Congress lacked the authority to deprive states of the right to regulate this aspect of their economy, or to deprive individuals of their property. Not only did nullifying the Missouri Compromise subordinate the power of the federal government to the slave-holding states and allow for the free spread of slavery, it was also one of the catalysts for the Civil War.
4. The Court decision undermined the right of states' and developing territories' citizens to exclude slavery from their soil, virtually eradicating the concept of "popular sovereignty," which many abolitionists hoped would allow citizens to establish anti-slavery territories.
5. The Court's decision deprived slaves entering "free" states the right to emancipation from their owners by virtue of being in a state that outlawed slavery, under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause.
6. The Court sanctioned the practice of slave-holders tracking runaway slaves to free states and returning them to their masters, undermining the efforts of certain state courts and abolitionists to have the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 declared unconstitutional.
7. The Court ruling held that children born in free states to people declared slaves were also slaves.
8. The Court also indirectly sanctioned continued violence against slaves.
9. As one journalist wrote: "They converted the Supreme Court of Law and Equity of the United States of America into a propagandist of human Slavery." and perverted the meaning of the Constitution.
10. The decision was immoral, inhumane, perverse and cruel to anyone who valued human beings and believed freedom and constitutional rights should extend to all.
11. They were outraged at the Supreme Court's verdict that the Constitution protected a man's property, and that slaves counted as property.
12. They were also offended at the further suggestion that a black man should not really be taking a white man to court.

Case Citation:

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

Answer 3

Dred Scott was the personal servant of Dr. John Emerson in 1846 when Emerson died. He then sued for his freedom, because he had lived in territories where slavery was illegal. The county court accepted that, but the Missouri supreme court rejected him as free. He took his case on appeal to the Supreme Court.

The chief justice, Roger Taney,( a former slave owner) overruled it, stating that free or slave, Scott wasn't a citizen, so he couldn't stand before the court. He also mentioned that slaves were a piece of property, comparing them with a mule, and that the fifth amendment protected property, he couldn't deprive the owners of their slaves.

So, the south, with that, were given hope to make another step. They questioned the law of 1807 outlawing the slave trade. This caused the Republicans to grow stronger. Those in the North who had been neutral joined the Republican party. The Republican party grew more defiant, and the wedge grew deeper.

Answer 4

the answer is because Dred Scott was a black man, he was not a U.S. citizen. Taney cited various laws limiting or denying black citizenship in many states, particularly in the North. If a person was not a citizen, he could not be protected by the Constitution, and thus had no right to sue in federal court.

Answer 5

Dred Scott was the personal servant of Dr. John Emerson in 1846 when Emerson died. He then sued for his freedom, because he had lived in territories where slavery was illegal. The county court accepted that, but the Missouri supreme court rejected him as free. He took his case on appeal to the Supreme Court.

The chief justice, Roger Taney,( a former slave owner) overruled it, stating that free or slave, Scott wasn't a citizen, so he couldn't stand before the court. He also mentioned that slaves were a piece of property, comparing them with a mule, and that the fifth amendment protected property, he couldn't deprive the owners of their slaves.

So, the south, with that, were given hope to make another step. They questioned the law of 1807 outlawing the slave trade. This caused the Republicans to grow stronger. Those in the North who had been neutral joined the Republican party. The Republican party grew more defiant, and the wedge grew deeper

Answer 6

Tension rose between north and south because the south would lose some algriculture. Meaning the south would have to find people to replace slaves to pick their main source which was cotton.

Answer 7

The Dred Scott decision was so controversial in the north becauseafrican americans would not have freedom or citizenship.

Answer 8

Dred scott being deemed as property angered northers abolitionists, and the union