A slave by the name of Dred Scott was brought by his master from Missouri to live for a short time in the free state of Illinois. Upon returning to Missouri, Scott began to argue that he should be allowed to live free since he had lived in a free state. He sued for his freedom in 1854, and appealed to the Supreme Court when the state court ruled against him.
Scott's lawyers argued that Scott's wife, whom had married while in the free state of Illinois, and his
daughter, born while on a steamboat back to Missouri, should be allowed to live from then on in emancipation. Under Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans were not considered, and never could be considered, citizens. They added that because of this, they were not allowed to sue in court. Scott remained enslaved. Chief Justice Taney went on to say that by banning slavery, Congress was taking away peoples' property. All congressional efforts to ban slavery in the territories was prohibited. Many dissenters argued that previous acts of Congress, such as the Northwest Ordinance, had limited slavery, and no one had claimed that these acts violated property rights, and therefore the Fifth Amendment. Nevertheless, Taney's strong proslavery position became a part of the national law.
After the Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment (1865) and the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) showed the federal government's efforts to abolish slavery. Dred Scott vs. Sandford could no longer be used a precedent for future cases. It was instead viewed as one of the worst decisions ever made by the Supreme Court.
by Cat and Mira
