What was the ruling of the Dred Scott case?

Answer 1

The ruling of the Dred Scott case was that he was still a slave in a free state. The supreme court questioned his right of being an African-American and coming to the supreme court when he was, as I said before, an African-American.

Answer 2

Dred Scott was the slave of an army Doctor Who had spent most of his service near home in Alabama.

When the doctor was posted to the North, he took his slave with him. This would have entitled Scott to his freedom automatically, if he had applied for it while on free soil.

But he did not apply for it until they had returned to Alabama and the doctor had died and left Scott, as property, to his wife's family.

The local judges had never dealt with a retrospective application for freedom, so it was referred to the Supreme Court, where the elderly Chief Justice (Taney) gave a surprise ruling that slavery was protected everywhere by the Constitution - on the grounds that the Founding Fathers would have classified slaves as property, when they declared that a man's property was sacred.

This appeared to mean that slavery was legal in every state of the Union. It delighted the South as much as it horrified Northern Abolitionists. And it raised the temperature of the debate, bringing war closer.

Answer 3

His application for freedom was rejected on the grounds that the Constitution protected slavery.

This was more than just a ruling against Scott. It appeared to mean that there was no such thing as free soil. The suggestion that a black man was not the sort of person who should be suing a white man also inflamed the Abolitionists.

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.

Case Citation:

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

Answer 4

1. Scott could not file a lawsuit because African Americans were not citizens.
2. The constitution protects a citizen's right to own property. Slaves, considered property, could be taken anywhere by owners.
3. The United States congress had no right to outlaw slavery in a territory, and declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.

Case Citation:

Dred Scott v. Sandford*, 60 US 393 (1857)

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 5

The case was eventually appealed to the US Supreme Court which, in a 7-2 ruling, 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.

That Scott could not have his freedom on the grounds that he had been on free soil - because the Constitution said property was sacred, and slaves were property. So there could be no free soil.

It also suggested that a black man had no business suing a white man, and this aroused anger in the North.

Case Citation:

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

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 6

Roger B. Taney, who wrote the Dred Scott decision, said that Scott had no right to sue in federal court; that Scott was property, not a person nor a citizen; and that Scott was still considered a slave, even though he was owned in a state where slavery was deemed illegal. So, Dred Scott was not granted freedom. The Missouri Compromise was considered unconstitutional because Taney said that Scott was still a slave in an antislavery state.

Answer 7

The Constitution declared that a man's property was sacred - and the Founding Fathers would have included slaves in their definition of property.

Therefore slavery was legal in every state of the Union.

A black man could not be a citizen of the USA, and could not take a white man to court.

So Scott's owners had no case to answer.

Answer 8

National legislation could not limit the spread of slavery in the territories

Answer 9

That a black man was not the sort of person who ought to be taking a white man to court.

Answer 10

jjj