Scott vs. Sanford, 60 US 343 (1857)
Dred Scott was a slave who had lived in free states. He believed that this made him a free man, even though he was still under the 'ownership' of his widowed master, Irene Emerson. He sued for his freedom.
The case went to the Supreme Court. Emerson handed the case to her brother, Sanford, who held her place in the court against Scott. The courts eventually ruled that Scott had no rights as a slave. He was not a citizen and could not sue in a court of law. The courts had no right to free him from Emerson, as Scott was her 'property', as stated in the 5th Amendment.
For more information on Dred Scott v. Sanford, (1857), see Related Links, below.
Dred Scott
In the Dred Scott decision, the Court held that 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 Reports
Case Citation:
Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393 (1857)
Chief Justice, Roger Taney, in the Dred Scott trial, when it reached the Supreme Court in 1857.
The Dread Scott case was the Supreme Court case the stated that Congress did not have the right to ban slavery in states and that blacks were not citizens.
The US Supreme Court decision on the Dred Scott case affirmed that slaves were property. The court also ruled that Blacks could never be US Citizens. It took several Constitutional amendments to ensure that Blacks and other minorities had the same rights as white people. The 13th amendment abolished slavery totally.
The decision codified slavery and stated that slaves were not citizens, but property. These things made it important and set the stage for the civil war.
The judge's ruling in the Dred Scott case stated that slaves and freed slaves were not US citizens. Thus they had no power to sue in court and the federal government could not control slavery.
In the 1857 US Supreme Court decision that involved the Dredd Scott case, the Court stated the slaves were property and, also, they could never be US citizens. This pro-slavery decision would later require an amendment to the US Constitution in order to abolish slavery.
The stated purpose was to prevent voting by citizens who could not understand the issues being voted. But in effect it prevented freed slaves (and their under-educated descendants) from exercising their voting rights. Even where they represented a large percentage of the population, they could not elect candidates sympathetic to their concerns.
the dred scott decision stated that slaves are peoplealso and should'nt be property :D yurwelcomee
The Old Testament stated that in Egypt, the Pharoh had slaves, also known as the isrealites, working on his pyrimids. These slaves were later saved by Moses.
The Old Testament stated that in Egypt, the Pharoh had slaves, also known as the isrealites, working on his pyrimids. These slaves were later saved by Moses.
to vote :)
Slaves were the property of their owners.