0
Dred Scott v. Sanford*, 60 US 393 (1857)
In the Dred Scott decision, the Court held that slaves were chattel (property). Slaves, as well as people who had been slaves, or who descended from slaves, were not protected by the Constitution and could never be US citizens. Without citizenship status, African-Americans were denied access to the courts, and couldn't sue for their freedom, even if they had a contractual agreement granting them free status.
The Supreme Court also ruled that Congress had no right to prohibit slavery, nullifying the Missouri Compromise.
The Court's decision in this case was overturned by the Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting slavery.
* The name Sanford is misspelled as "Sandford" in US Reports
Answer
That was the Dred Scott decision - concerning the status of a slave who had been taken on to free soil, and then back to slave country.
The Supreme Court declared that a black man should have no business suing a white man.
More ominously, it also ruled that slavery was protected by the Constitution. Taken literally, this would mean that there was no such thing as free soil.
These two aspects of the Supreme Court ruling helped to raise the temperature of the debate, and made war virtually inevitable.
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Rene
Taiga
CoachDred Scott v. Sanford*, 60 US 393 (1857)
In the Dred Scott decision, the Court held that people who had been slaves, or who descended from slaves, were not protected by the Constitution and could never be US citizens. Without citizenship status, African-Americans were denied access to the courts, and couldn't sue for their freedom, even if they had a contractual agreement granting them free status.
The Supreme Court also ruled that Congress had no right to prohibit slavery, nullifying the Missouri Compromise.
The Court's decision in this case was overturned by the Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting slavery.
* The name Sanford is misspelled as Sandford in US Reports
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
In the famous Dred Scott decision, the US Supreme Court made some controversial declarations about slavery and property. The Court stated that slaves or freed slaves were not US Citizens and could not take a case to court. Because the US Constitution did not forbid slavery it was a "given" that slaves were "property" as sad as that seems.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Was Dred Scott v. Sanford overturned by the amending of the constitution?
Not amending. Interpreting. The Supreme Court ruled that when the Founding Fathers declared that a man's property was sacred, they would have included slaves within their definition of property.
The Supreme Court has ruled that states can require the owners of shopping centers to allow which activities on their property?
petitions
What amendment was used to justify the outcome of dred Scott?
The declaration that a man's property was sacred. The court ruled that the Founding Fathers would have included slaves within their definition of property.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1919 that the legislation to improve working conditions was?
unconstitutional
The supreme court has ruled that the military draft and imprisonment what?
Do not violate the 13th amendment
