Dred Scott v. Sandford

Dred Scott, a slave, was taken by his owner from the slave state of Missouri to the free states of Illinois and Wisconsin, and then taken back to Missouri. In 1854, Dred Scott appealed to the supreme court for his right to freedom, claiming that by having lived in the free states, he should be a free man. After several years, the supreme came to their decision on March 6, 1857, ruling that Dred Scott would remain a slave.

Supreme Court justice Roger Taney's reasoning was that since slaves were not citizens, they had none of the rights guaranteed to citizens under the constitution. Therefore, Dred Scott didn't even have the right to bring a lawsuit to federal court. In addition, Roger Taney also ruled that any ban of slavery was a violation of the Fifth Amendment since this amendment guarantees the right to not be deprived to property, and at the time, slaves were seen as property.

However, two of the other Supreme Court justices dissented on these rulings, claiming that African Americans were given citizenship under several laws, state constitutions, and the U.S. Constitution. Most Northerners felt the trial was unfair because the majority of Supreme Court justices were Southerners, unfairly biasing the outcome of the decision. Although this was a setback for the slavery debate, tensions between the North and South increased, eventually culminating in the civil war. In 1865, the North won the civil war and the Thirteenth Amendment was written into the U.S. Constitution, abolishing slavery and effectively preventing the Dred Scott v. Sandford case from ever acting as a precedent. From then on, the reasoning originally used to decide the outcome of Dred Scott's trial could no longer be used again.

Written by Derek.