0
The Supreme Court basically said that the entire USA, (before the Civil War), was a slave nation. That there were no slave states, or free states. The entire country was a slave nation and anyone could have slaves in any state they wanted to. One of the Supreme Court Justices even said that a black people in the USA had no rights and that white people could do anything they wanted to to black people. Dred Scott, a slave who was taken to Wisconsin (a "free" state) was still a slave, and it did not matter where his owner took him to.
What else can I help you with?
What did the Dred Scott case say?
that slaves were property
Did the 13th Amendment explicitly overrule Dred Scott v Sandford?
No. The 13th amendment does prohibit slavery but i was not a amendment at the time until 8 years after the case. Dred Scott did not win the case and became property of his owner again.Another Perspective:By the time the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in 1865, Dred Scott had been dead seven years, so he didn't personally benefit from the change. The Thirteenth Amendment set aside the precedent established in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857), however, so yes, you could say it overturned the Dred Scott decision because the ruling could no longer be applied, enforced or cited as precedent in future cases.Case Citation:Dred Scott v. Sandford*, 60 US 393 (1857)
What did the Dred Scott Decision say about the condition of slaves in the?
we should all be the same
What did the Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case say about the expansion of slavery into the territories and the rights of slaves in the US?
The Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case declared that slaves were not citizens, so they had no rights under the Constitution and no legal standing in court. It also ruled that Congress had no power to ban slavery in the territories, essentially allowing for the expansion of slavery into new regions.
What did the dred Scott case say about enslaved people?
Nothing very flattering - from either side. Scott had had his opportinity to claim freedom when he was in the Northern states, but he didn't do it. He then tried to claim it later, on a retrospective basis, and the local judges had not dealt with this kind of case before. It was referred to the Supreme Court, which declared that a black man was not the sort of persion who should be suing a white man.
Why did the judge say that Dred Scott was a runaway?
None of the justices in Scott v. Sandford, (1857), called Dred Scott a runaway. The discussion of runaway slaves in Taney's opinion was intended to illustrate a point about property ownership and the status of slaves in other countries.According to a December 22, 1895, New York Times interview with Dred Scott's last owner (the late Dr. Emerson's widow), Scott never ran away despite having multiple opportunities.
How can obiter dictum become part of a ratio in a case?
Do you mean rationale? If so, obiter dictum is, by definition, not part of the rationale for deciding a case. It is extra language inserted by the judge that is not necessary in deciding the case. For example, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, Chief Justice Taney writes in the opinion that African-Americans are not and cannot be citizens, thus Dred Scott didn't have the right to sue in federal courts. Chief Justice Taney should have stopped after that, because if Dred Scott didn't have a right to sue in federal courts, then the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction and the case should be dismissed. However, Taney goes on to say that slavery can't be banned in any state or territory because it's a violation of the due process clause. This is all obiter dictum, it has no relevance on the decision of the issue presented before the Court.
What did the dred Scott decision say about dred?
The Dred Scott decision, handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857, ruled that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, were not considered U.S. citizens and therefore did not have the right to sue in federal court. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, stating that Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in the territories.
How did the Dred Scott decision regulate the spread of slavery?
The Dred Scott versus Sandford ruling also called the Dred Scott Decision, help to regulate and spread the effects of slavery faster because it said that as slaves these people were not really citizens and as such had no rights to sue anyone. The law went on to say that the government had no way to enforce any rulings to stop slavery in states or areas that were created before the states became unified.
Why did the supreme court say that dred Scott was still a slave?
The Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that African Americans, whether free or slaves, were not considered citizens under the United States Constitution. As a result, Dred Scott was not entitled to claim his freedom in a federal court, and his status as a slave was maintained. This decision further aggravated tensions between the North and South over the issue of slavery leading up to the Civil War.
What did the Supreme Court say in their ruling for Dred Scott?
george bush went in and smoked some weed with those black persons and said " im homosexual"
What did the Supreme Court say about African Americans in the Dred Scott Decision?
The dred Scott decision held that all African Americans, whether free or slave, were not citizens of the US, had no power to sue in court, and that the congress had no constitutional authority to end slavery.
