What was the result of the dred Scott vs Sanford decision by the us supreme court?

Answer 1

That Scott had no right to argue in court

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

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)

Answer 4

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.

Answer 5

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.

Answer 6

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.

Answer 7

he U.S. Supreme Court ruled that African Americans were not citizens of the United States

Answer 8

The Missouri Compromise was found unconstitutional.

Answer 9

The Missouri Compromise.

Answer 10

ho knows