What was the signifigance of the Dred Scott Decision?

Answer 1

The Dred Scott decision effectively ended the Missouri Compromise, hardening the political rivalry between North and South and paving the way for the Civil War.

It determined slaves were not citizens of either their state of residence or the US, and therefore couldn't bring suit against their "owners" in court. According to Chief Justice Roger Taney, slaves were property, not humans.

The Supreme Court's ruling resulted in major violence, stirring the deep‐seated emotions in the already heated battle of race relations in the United States.

The Dred Scott case played a major role in precipitating the Civil War. The Supreme Court's ruling resulted in major violence, stirring the deep‐seated emotions in the already heated battle of race relations in the United States.

In a 7-2 ruling, the US Supreme Court held the following:

• African-Americans could never be citizens of the United States or the individual states.
• African-Americans were chattel (property) according to the Constitution, and their owners were protected from losing their property under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause and Due Process Clause, which invalidated the "once free, always free" tradition.
• Because African-Americans were considered property, and were not legal citizens, they had no right to sue for their freedom.
• The Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because Congress had overstepped its authority in attempting to regulate states' rights.
• Citizens' groups were prohibited from establishing anti-slavery territories.

Case Citation:

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857)

For more information, see Related Links, below.

Answer 2

The Dred Scott decision effectively ended the Missouri Compromise, hardening the political rivalry between North and South and paving the way for the Civil War.

It determined slaves were not citizens of either their state of residence or the US, and therefore couldn't bring suit against their "owners" in court. According to Chief Justice Roger Taney, slaves were property, not humans.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857)

Answer 3

It declared that slavery was legal in every state of the Union, according to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

This delighted the South, but horrified Northern Abolitionists, and it brought the country closer to war.

Background information on this question and answer is important to the significance of the Dred Scott decision. Here is an outline as a guide.

1. Dred Scott was a slave owned by Dr. Emerson who was a US Army surgeon who lived in Missouri.

2. Scott accompanied Emerson to Wisconsin, a free territory.

3. Emerson died in 1843 and Scott sought to purchase his freedom from Emerson's wife. She refused the offer.

4. Scott sued for his freedom on the grounds that he had resided in a US State and a US Territory where slavery was illegal by virtue of the law in part called the Missouri Compromise.

5. The case of Scott v. Sanford ( Sanford was the executor of Emerson's estate )

went to trial in Missouri in 1847.

6. After a series of contradictory decisions & appeals, the case reached the US Supreme Court in 1856.

7. The Court focused on two issues:

7A. Was Scott a US citizen, because only citizens had the right to sue.

7B. Slaves were not US citizens, but Scott's visit to the Wisconsin territory made him free & therefore his lawyers argued that visiting a territory that did not allow slavery, made Scott "free" and therefore a citizen and had the right to sue.

8. The other issue taken up by the Supreme Court was did the US Congress have the right to prohibit slavery in the territories? If not, then Scott could therefore not be free. Nor would Scott be a US citizen and barred from filing a lawsuit?

9. In 1857 the Court rendered a controversial decision. It concluded that Scott was never a US citizen because he was a slave. The Court ruled that Congress had no right to ban slavery as it was a private property matter. This made the Missouri Compromise law unconstitutional.

10. The decision was a controversial one. It was hailed by the South and handed Northern anti slavery groups a severe set back.

The first contributor stated that this brought The Civil War even closer. I don't see the rational for this conclusion. The Court decision did not make slavery legal in every State. The decision was significant in that Congress had no Constitutional authority to infringe on property right and slaves were considered property.

Important fact: President Lincoln believed that it was illegal to outlaw slavery in the South. He believed it was unconstitutional to do so. Even after the Civil War had begun and a Union general had taken control of one of the territories, he declared the freedom of all slaves there. Lincoln, still a constitutionalist recended the generals "freedom" declaration.

Answer 4

the dred scott case was a major turning point in the debate of slavery. this case made it known that slavery was protected under the constiton. slaves were considered property and in the bill of rights, property could not be taken away without a warrant. the dred scott cause let all americans know that the law staed that slaves were not humans, not citizens, did not have rights, and were property. in my opinion, this is when he debate on slavery became so serious in not be fixed with another comprimise.