0
The Supreme Court basically said that the entire USA, (before the Civil War), was a slave nation. That there were no slave states, or free states. The entire country was a slave nation and anyone could have slaves in any state they wanted to. One of the Supreme Court Justices even said that a black people in the USA had no rights and that white people could do anything they wanted to to black people. Dred Scott, a slave who was taken to Wisconsin (a "free" state) was still a slave, and it did not matter where his owner took him to.
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What did the Dred Scott case say?
that slaves were property
How can obiter dictum become part of a ratio in a case?
Do you mean rationale? If so, obiter dictum is, by definition, not part of the rationale for deciding a case. It is extra language inserted by the judge that is not necessary in deciding the case. For example, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, Chief Justice Taney writes in the opinion that African-Americans are not and cannot be citizens, thus Dred Scott didn't have the right to sue in federal courts. Chief Justice Taney should have stopped after that, because if Dred Scott didn't have a right to sue in federal courts, then the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction and the case should be dismissed. However, Taney goes on to say that slavery can't be banned in any state or territory because it's a violation of the due process clause. This is all obiter dictum, it has no relevance on the decision of the issue presented before the Court.
Did the 13th Amendment explicitly overrule Dred Scott v Sandford?
No. The 13th amendment does prohibit slavery but i was not a amendment at the time until 8 years after the case. Dred Scott did not win the case and became property of his owner again.Another Perspective:By the time the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in 1865, Dred Scott had been dead seven years, so he didn't personally benefit from the change. The Thirteenth Amendment set aside the precedent established in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857), however, so yes, you could say it overturned the Dred Scott decision because the ruling could no longer be applied, enforced or cited as precedent in future cases.Case Citation:Dred Scott v. Sandford*, 60 US 393 (1857)
What did the Dred Scott Decision say about the condition of slaves in the?
we should all be the same
Why did the judge say that Dred Scott was a runaway?
None of the justices in Scott v. Sandford, (1857), called Dred Scott a runaway. The discussion of runaway slaves in Taney's opinion was intended to illustrate a point about property ownership and the status of slaves in other countries.According to a December 22, 1895, New York Times interview with Dred Scott's last owner (the late Dr. Emerson's widow), Scott never ran away despite having multiple opportunities.
What did the dred Scott case say about enslaved people?
Nothing very flattering - from either side. Scott had had his opportinity to claim freedom when he was in the Northern states, but he didn't do it. He then tried to claim it later, on a retrospective basis, and the local judges had not dealt with this kind of case before. It was referred to the Supreme Court, which declared that a black man was not the sort of persion who should be suing a white man.
How did the Dred Scott decision regulate the spread of slavery?
The Dred Scott versus Sandford ruling also called the Dred Scott Decision, help to regulate and spread the effects of slavery faster because it said that as slaves these people were not really citizens and as such had no rights to sue anyone. The law went on to say that the government had no way to enforce any rulings to stop slavery in states or areas that were created before the states became unified.
What did the Supreme Court say in their ruling for Dred Scott?
george bush went in and smoked some weed with those black persons and said " im homosexual"
What did the Supreme Court say about African Americans in the Dred Scott Decision?
The dred Scott decision held that all African Americans, whether free or slave, were not citizens of the US, had no power to sue in court, and that the congress had no constitutional authority to end slavery.
How do you say the word 100?
One-hun-dred. If you don't know how to pronounce it, say it like this: Won- hun - dred. Good luck!
What did the US Supreme Court Dred Scott decision say about slavery?
It was a legal dispute about the status of a slave who had lived on free soil for a time and then returned to slave country. The courts had never dealt with this question before, and that is how it reached the Supreme Court, where the Chief Justice made his controversial statements about slavery and blacks in general.
Which supreme court case ruled that slaves were property?
Dred Scott v. Sanford*, 60 US 393 (1857)In the Dred Scott decision, the Court held that slaves were chattel (property). Slaves, as well as people who had been slaves, or who descended from slaves, were not protected by the Constitution and could never be US citizens. Without citizenship status, African-Americans were denied access to the courts, and couldn't sue for their freedom, even if they had a contractual agreement granting them free status.The Supreme Court also ruled that Congress had no right to prohibit slavery, nullifying the Missouri Compromise.The Court's decision in this case was overturned by the Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting slavery.* The name Sanford is misspelled as "Sandford" in US ReportsAnswerThat was the Dred Scott decision - concerning the status of a slave who had been taken on to free soil, and then back to slave country.The Supreme Court declared that a black man should have no business suing a white man.More ominously, it also ruled that slavery was protected by the Constitution. Taken literally, this would mean that there was no such thing as free soil.These two aspects of the Supreme Court ruling helped to raise the temperature of the debate, and made war virtually inevitable.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
