That Scott had no right to argue in court
Dred Scott v. Sanford*, 60 US 393 (1857)
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional as a state's rights issue, claiming Congress had no constitutional authority to restrict slave ownership among the states, nor to deprive slave owners of their "property," once the federal territories became states.
*Sanford's name was misspelled as Sandford in the official court records.
They ruled that slavery was legal in every state of the Union, because the Founding Fathers had declared that a man's property was sacred, and they would have included slaves within their definition of property.
They also added that a black man was not the sort of person who ought to be suing a white man in the first place.
This was an astonishing verdict, and it split the nation even further.
The Court ruled blacks could not be considered citizens and reversed part of the Missouri Compromise.
The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in defendant John Sanford's favor, returning Dred Scott and his family to slavery. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Majority
Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice
James Wayne
John Catron
Peter V. Daniel
Samuel Nelson
Robert Grier
John Campbell
Dissenting
John McLean
Benjamin R. Curtis
Case Citation:
Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393 (1857)
It decided that when the Founding Fathers declared that a man's property was sacred, they would have included slaves within their definition of property.
Therefore, it reasoned, slavery was protected by the Constitution - in every state, North and South.
It also added that they did not think a black man was the sort of person who ought to be suing a white man in the first place.
All of this shocked the Abolitionists as much as it delighted the slave-owners, and it helped to drive the two sides even further apart.
It resulted in the Supreme Court deciding that he was not a 'person' but a mere 'object'. So, he was kept a slave until he finally bought his freedom, which didn't even last 2 years before he died.
Taney's verdict was roughly:
Dred Scott was a slave, therefore he was not a Citizen of the United States and consequently he had no right to appeal to the Federal Justice.
His stay in the Territories where the Missouri Compromise had banned the slavery, meant nothing, because such Compromise had not nullified neither in 1850 nor in 1854, but it had always been null and void and lacking any effect since its formulation in 1820, because the Congress had no power to legislate about the slavery in the Territories.
The Missouri Compromise was therefore unconstitutional and unconstitutional would have been every future parliamentary attempt aimed to interfere in the question of slavery in the Western Territories.
he U.S. Supreme Court ruled that African Americans were not citizens of the United States
The Missouri Compromise was found unconstitutional.
The Missouri Compromise.
ho knows
The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in defendant John Sanford's favor, returning Dred Scott and his family to slavery. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the Opinion of the Court.PartiesDred ScottJohn Sanford (alleged "owner" of Dred Scott; misspelled as Sandford in court records)Other Important IndividualsEliza Irene Sanford (Chaffee) (widow of Dr. Emerson and probable real "owner" of Dred ScottDr. Calvin Chaffee (Irene Sanford's second husband; abolitionist and member of Congress, arranged "ownership" of Scott transferred to Taylor Blow for manumission)Taylor Blow (Son of Dred Scott's original "owner," who provided financial support for Scott's legal case(s) and freed Scott after the case)AttorneysMontgomery Blair, Alexander Field and David Hall (for Dred Scott)Reverdy Johnson, Henry S. Geyer, and Hugh Garland (for John Sanford)Supreme Court MajorityRoger B. Taney, Chief JusticeJames WayneJohn CatronPeter V. DanielSamuel NelsonRobert GrierJohn CampbellSupreme Court DissentingJohn McLeanBenjamin R. CurtisDred Scott was a slave of a U.S. Army surgeon, John Emerson of Missouri, a state that permitted slavery. In 1834, Scott went with Emerson to live in Illinois, which prohibited slavery. They later lived in the Wisconsin Territory, which slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise. In 1838, Scott returned to Missouri with Emerson. Emerson died there in 1843, and three years later Scott sued the surgeon's wife for his freedom.Scott based his lawsuit on the argument that his former residence in a free state and a free territory-Illinois and Wisconsin-made him a free man. A circuit court ruled in Scott's favor, but the Missouri Supreme Court later reversed the decision. Meanwhile, Scott had become legally regarded as the property of John F.A. Sanford (spelled Sandford in the U.S. Supreme Court records) of New York. At the conclusion of the Supreme Court case, the Blow family, who originally sold Scott to Dr. Emerson, purchased him from Emerson's widow and had him legally emancipated (manumission).Case Citation:Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393 (1857)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Taney led the U.S. Supreme Court as Chief Justice in the Dred Scott decision.
Scott had a number of lawyers, the best known of which was Montgomery Blair, who served as Postmaster General under Lincoln during the Civil war. As a side note, Blair was the great-grandfather of actor Montgomery Clift.
Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393 (1857)AnswerDred Scott sued for his freedom.The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in defendant John Sanford's favor, returning Dred Scott and his family to slavery. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the Opinion of the Court that held slaves, former slaves and descendants of slaves could never be US citizens.AnswerThat was Dred Scott. He should have claimed his freedom while he was on free soil, but he was brought back into slave country, and tried to claim his freedom when his status was subject to debate. This caused immense trouble - and arguably started the Civil War.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
The Dred Scott decision or Dred Scott v. Sandford, took place in 1857. His case was based on the fact that he and his wife Harriet Scott were slaves, but had lived in states and territories where slavery was illegal, including Illinois and Minnesota (which was then part of the Wisconsin Territory). Dred Scott lost the case when The United States Supreme Court ruled seven to two, on the grounds that he, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States, and that therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules.
Which statement best describes the Dred Scott v. Sanford Supreme Court decision?
People of all states could decide if they wanted slavery withing their borders. A+Ls: The supreme court declared scott was a free man
The Supreme Court declared Scott was a free man
Dred Scott v. Sanford
Dred Scott v. Sanford
the decision made slavery legal in all us territories that were not yet states
He was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision.
The decision made slavery legal in all U.S. territories that were not yet states.
The decision on Dred Scott vs. Sanford was made by the US Supreme Court on March 6, 1857. For all practical purposes, the Court ruled that slavery was legal and that slaves were property.
the decision made slavery legal in all us territories that were not yet states
The Dred Scott vs. Sanford case was decided in March of 1857 by the United State Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. In this decision, it was declared that all blacks, slaves as well as free , were not and could never become citizens of the United States.
The decision on Dred Scott vs. Sanford was made by the US Supreme Court on March 6, 1857. For all practical purposes, the Court ruled that slavery was legal and that slaves were property.