What was the decision for the Dred Scott case?

Answer 1

The basis for the Dred Scott case was state citizenship and diversity. Scott, originally a slave in the South, felt he should be considered free after his master's death left him in the North so he tried to file a lawsuit. However, the court ruled on the South's side that he was property and had no rights, which was considered a turning point in slavery.

Answer 2

The Dred Scott case was when Dred Scott wanted to become free. His owner(master) died while he was visiting the north, and left dred to hang there. He decided since he was in the north, he could be free, and he filed a "lawsuit." Then. the Supreme Court decided he was property, and he wasn't let free. This outraged the north, but the south realized that the US government was on their side.

Answer 3

The case raised the issue of a black slave who traveled with his Master to a free state. His master Dr. John Emerson, was in the army and often transferred. Scott's extended stay with his master in Illinois, a free state, gave him the legal standing to make a claim for freedom,where slavery was prohibited. The court ruled against Scott because blacks were not considered human but property (like animals) therefore the wicked court ruled that he had no right to sue in a court of law. Later when blacks were charge with a crime in a court of law they amended the law (since no animal had ever been taken to court and stood trial) the law then stated blacks were 1/4 human.

Answer 4

In a 7-2 ruling, the US Supreme Court held the following:

• African-Americans could never be citizens of the United States or the individual states.
• African-Americans were chattel (property) according to the Constitution, and their owners were protected from losing their property under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause and Due Process Clause, which invalidated the "once free, always free" tradition.
• Because African-Americans were considered property, and were not legal citizens, they had no right to sue for their freedom.
• The Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because Congress had overstepped its authority in attempting to regulate states' rights.
• Citizens' groups were prohibited from establishing anti-slavery territories.

In the Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) case, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney held neither slaves nor those descended from slaves could be citizens of the United States and had no legal rights to sue. He supported his argument with a long and tortured analysis of the Founding Fathers' intentions in writing the Declaration of Independence and framing the Constitution, and concluded that African-Americans were deliberately excluded as citizens, and were, therefore, property.

Taney next expounded on the property rights of white citizens with regard to slaves, and determined it was illegal for a free state or territory to deprive a man of his property while in those states, while simultaneously acknowledging the slavery was a state's rights issue.

Taney next turned his attention to Congress and declared it did not have the right to prohibit slavery in territories held collectively by the states, or to force new states formed from federal territory to adhere to agreements such as the Missouri Compromise, which was designed to prevent slaveholding from expanding. This rendered the Missouri Compromise null and void.

The decision in Dred Scott was one of the primary catalysts to the start of the Civil War.

Case Citation:

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

He decided that people ofAfrican descent imported into the u.s. and there descendants were not citizens so they did not have legal rights to sue.