Thanks a mil
7 Answers
-
The Dred Scott Case made it clear that with Southern Judges on the Supreme Court the issue of Slavery would never be settled and that any final solution for the Slavery Issue would have to come at the hands of the people. The Southern dominated Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott that N^groes were mere property, less than human, and had no rights, quite obviouslly the Supreme Court failed.
Peace/////////////////\
-
Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants[2]—whether or not they were slaves—could never be citizens of the United States, and that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. The Court also ruled that slaves could not sue in court, and that slaves—as chattel or private property—could not be taken away from their owners without due process. The Court in the Dred Scott decision sided with border ruffians in the Bleeding Kansas dispute who were afraid a free Kansas would be a haven for runaway slaves from Missouri. The Supreme Court's decision was written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.
Dred Scott was indirectly overruled in the Slaughter-house cases, which noted that Dred Scott's holding was superseded by the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865, which abolished slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which guaranteed full rights and citizenship regardless of race. Though it is sometimes said that Dred Scott was never officially overruled, the Slaughter-house cases in fact explicitly overrule it:
The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and
-
Basically, in short, the Dred Scott case demonstrated or rather showed that slaves would still be considered property even when on free-soil. Dred Scott tried to sue for his freedom, thinking that because he had lived on free-soil for years, he would be win. However, he was wrong, because the Supreme Court denied him and his slave master won the suit. This merely, further enforced the Southern attitude that all people were equal, besides slaves.
Source(s): me! -
Dred Scott argued for his freedom but the court decided that slave don't have any right even if they're free and this also got rid of the Missouri compromise
-
The court docket ruled that, as Dred Scott become no longer considered a citizen of u . s . a . of america, and become in actuality, a slave, that he did no longer have the rights to sue for his freedom adverse to his draw close. interior the Douglas-Lincoln debate in Illinois, Stephen Douglas claimed that express territories interior of u . s . a . of america would nicely be without slavery if the state law ordered it to be so, in spite of the ideally suited court docket's decision interior the Dred Scott case.
-
This was the first time in American history where a slave sued for his freedom and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld slavery, denied citizenship to slaves and said the "Missouri Compromise" was unconstitutional.
-
It meant the laws, both Federal and state, that restricted slavery to only certain states were void, and a slave owner was free to take his slaves any place in America he wished.
The horrified reaction in the non-slaves states resulted in the formation of the Republican Party.