In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks, slaves as well as free, were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all of the country's territories (McPherson).
The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free states of Illinois and Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of winning his freedom.
Scott traveled with his master, John Emerson, an army surgeon who was often transferred. Emerson had a lengthy stay in Illinois in which Scott was with him. Scott believed this stay gave him the legal standing to make a claim for freedom, likewise his stay in the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was also prohibited. But Scott never made the claim while living in the free lands, perhaps because he was unaware of his rights at the time, or fearful of possible repercussions. After two years, the army transferred Emerson to St. Louis, Missouri, then to Louisiana; Scott was summoned a year later. …show more content…
2) As a slave and a black, he was not a citizen because at the time the constitution was written, blacks “had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order… so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” As such, Scott had no right to sue in Federal Court. 3) The provisions of the Act of 1820, known as the Missouri Compromise, were voided as a legislative act because the act exceeded the powers of Congress, insofar as it attempted to exclude slavery and impart freedom and citizenship to Black people in the northern part of the Louisiana cession. Scott’s stay in free territory did not make him free
The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free states of Illinois and Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of winning his freedom.
Scott traveled with his master, John Emerson, an army surgeon who was often transferred. Emerson had a lengthy stay in Illinois in which Scott was with him. Scott believed this stay gave him the legal standing to make a claim for freedom, likewise his stay in the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was also prohibited. But Scott never made the claim while living in the free lands, perhaps because he was unaware of his rights at the time, or fearful of possible repercussions. After two years, the army transferred Emerson to St. Louis, Missouri, then to Louisiana; Scott was summoned a year later. …show more content…
2) As a slave and a black, he was not a citizen because at the time the constitution was written, blacks “had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order… so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” As such, Scott had no right to sue in Federal Court. 3) The provisions of the Act of 1820, known as the Missouri Compromise, were voided as a legislative act because the act exceeded the powers of Congress, insofar as it attempted to exclude slavery and impart freedom and citizenship to Black people in the northern part of the Louisiana cession. Scott’s stay in free territory did not make him free