0
The Supreme Court decided to interpret the Constitution exactly as the Founding Fathers would have meant it. So when they said that a man's property was sacred, they would have included slaves in their definition of property. According to that reading of the Constitution, slavery was legal in every state of the Union, and the Missouri Compromise had been invalid all along.
This verdict delighted the South as much as it offended Northern abolitionists, and it drove the two sides further apart than ever.
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Ross
Beau
SteveThe Dred Scott Decision extablished that even if a slave established residence in a free state, he could still be returned to his owner. Living in a free state did not make a slave automatically free.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What court case determind that slaves were not US citizens in the Civil War?
The slave Dred Scott. This was before the war - and one of the causes of it, because it divided the two sides further and raised the temperature of the debate.
What years did the Dred Scott decision take place prior to the Civil War?
The Dred Scott decision or Dred Scott v. Sandford, took place in 1857. His case was based on the fact that he and his wife Harriet Scott were slaves, but had lived in states and territories where slavery was illegal, including Illinois and Minnesota (which was then part of the Wisconsin Territory). Dred Scott lost the case when The United States Supreme Court ruled seven to two, on the grounds that he, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States, and that therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules.
Missouri slave whose case before the supreme court upheld slavery?
Dred Scott.
Who ruled the dred Scott case?
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.PartiesDred ScottJohn Sanford (alleged "owner" of Dred Scott; misspelled as Sandford in court records)Other Important IndividualsEliza Irene Sanford (Chaffee) (widow of Dr. Emerson and probable real "owner" of Dred ScottDr. Calvin Chaffee (Irene Sanford's second husband; abolitionist and member of Congress, arranged "ownership" of Scott transferred to Taylor Blow for manumission)Taylor Blow (Son of Dred Scott's original "owner," who provided financial support for Scott's legal case(s) and freed Scott after the case)AttorneysMontgomery Blair, Alexander Field and David Hall (for Dred Scott)Reverdy Johnson, Henry S. Geyer, and Hugh Garland (for John Sanford)Supreme Court MajorityRoger B. Taney, Chief JusticeJames WayneJohn CatronPeter V. DanielSamuel NelsonRobert GrierJohn CampbellSupreme Court DissentingJohn McLeanBenjamin R. CurtisDred Scott was a slave of a U.S. Army surgeon, John Emerson of Missouri, a state that permitted slavery. In 1834, Scott went with Emerson to live in Illinois, which prohibited slavery. They later lived in the Wisconsin Territory, which slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise. In 1838, Scott returned to Missouri with Emerson. Emerson died there in 1843, and three years later Scott sued the surgeon's wife for his freedom.Scott based his lawsuit on the argument that his former residence in a free state and a free territory-Illinois and Wisconsin-made him a free man. A circuit court ruled in Scott's favor, but the Missouri Supreme Court later reversed the decision. Meanwhile, Scott had become legally regarded as the property of John F.A. Sanford (spelled Sandford in the U.S. Supreme Court records) of New York. At the conclusion of the Supreme Court case, the Blow family, who originally sold Scott to Dr. Emerson, purchased him from Emerson's widow and had him legally emancipated (manumission).Case Citation:Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393 (1857)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Why wasn't Dred Scott free?
Dred Scott Was not Freed Because of the severe Racism and discrimination against slaves. Most slave owners did their best to make slaves miserable. this was not in scotts case though. He was also not freed because the chief justice that oversaw scotts hearing was Proslavery which completley put out scotts chances of being freed. Taney Decreed that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional, Scott was to stay a slave, Scott was not a U.S. citizen, and he could not sue BECAUSE he wasn't a U.S. citizen.
