answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

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.

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago

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.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago

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)

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago
  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.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago

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.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago

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.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

11y ago

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.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago

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

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago

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

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Benjamin Dupleich

Lvl 2
4y ago

jjj

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What was the ruling of the Dred Scott case?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

What did the supreme court ruling the dred Scott case establish?

The ruling in the Dred Scott case allowed slave owners to take their slaves with them into the Western territories of the United States.


What was the difference between dred Scott and a mule?

According to Chief Justice Roger Taney's ruling on the Dred Scott case. Nothing is the answer. Dred Scott is just as much property as a mule.


What did the supreme. court rule in the dred Scott case?

The ruling in the Dred Scott case allowed slave owners to take their slaves with them into the Western territories of the United States.


What was the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case?

That Scott had no right to argue in court


Who was chief justice of the US for the dred Scott ruling?

Roger B. Taney was the Chief Justice of the United States during the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. He delivered the majority opinion in the case, which ruled against Dred Scott's petition for freedom.


Who was the supreme court justice that made the ruling in the Dred Scott case?

The ruling in the Dred Scott case was made by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who declared that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not considered citizens of the United States and therefore could not sue in federal court.


What did the Supreme Court rule in the Dred Scott case?

The ruling in the Dred Scott case allowed slave owners to take their slaves with them into the Western territories of the United States.


What were the origins of the Dred Scott case?

The origins of the Dred Scott case are due to the I.C.U.P organization


What case determined that African American slaves were not citizens?

dred scott...a+


What problems might result from the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott case?

That all black people are banned from this country.


What problems might result from the supreme court ruling in the dred Scott case?

That all black people are banned from this country.


What problems might result from the supreme courts ruling in the dred Scott case?

That all black people are banned from this country.