Slavery.
It was meant to be a simple verdict about whether a slave, Dred Scott, who had been taken on to free soil and then back into slave country, could sue for his freedom.
The controversial part was the reason given for refusing Scott's request. The Chief Justice invoked the Constitution in the spirit in which the Founding Fathers would have written it. When they declared that a man's property was sacred, they would have included slaves within their definition of property.
To the Chief Justice, this meant that slavery was legal in every state of the Union.
No, it could not apply today, because the case was concerned with the rights of slaves.
The finding in the Dred Scott vs Sanford case was tha when a slave master took a slave tho the north, the slave was notautomaticaly freed and furthermore that slaves were not people, but property.
The South loved it because it appeared to make slavery legal in every state of the Union.
The Dred Scott vs. Sanford case was decided in March of 1857 by the United State Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. In this decision, it was declared that all blacks, slaves as well as free , were not and could never become citizens of the United States.
Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia between 1795 and 1800. In 1846 he sued his owner for his freedom. The lawsuit was dismissed. In 1853, he sued again, this time in federal court. The defendant was John Sanford, the executor of John Emerson's estate (Emerson was Scott's owner). The Supreme Court found in favor of Sanford by a vote of 7-2.
Dred Scott
did you answer it
Dred Scott v. Sanford
Dred Scott v. Sanford
ether or not slaves could be considered citizens
It took place in 1857, in Missouri.
You mean Dred Scott versus Sanford - this was a Supreme Court case that ruled that African American people brought to the states as slaves could never be citizens. The case was tried in 1857.
No, it could not apply today, because the case was concerned with the rights of slaves.
The finding in the Dred Scott vs Sanford case was tha when a slave master took a slave tho the north, the slave was notautomaticaly freed and furthermore that slaves were not people, but property.
The Supreme Court met in Washington, D.C. when it decided the Dred Scott case. It has met in Washington for every case since February 1801.
The plaintiff in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case was Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in free states with his master and believed he should be granted freedom as a result. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled against him, denying his right to freedom and further inflaming tensions between the North and South over the issue of slavery.
The admission of California to the Union - it was too big to be accommodated according to the terms of that compromise.