Dred Scott V. Sandford
Background
Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri who then escaped to illionois where slavery was banned, becuase of the Missouri Compromise. He then was captured by his former master and taken back to Missouri, so Dred Scott sued claiming that his residency in the free state made him a free person. His master argued that and said no pure-blooded African American of slaves could be a citizen as stated in Article Three in the constitution.
Constitutional question
The constitutional question is does this go against the 5th amendment and to Missouri Compromise? Do those laws grant Dred Scott the immunity he needs to be a free man?
The Lasting Effect
Dred Scott was a slave so therefore he didn't have the rights to sue as a free man usually does. Chief justice Taney came to the conclusion that no pure-blooded slave has ever been a citizen as stated in Article III, therefore the Missouri Compromise is deemed unconstitutional.
Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri who then escaped to illionois where slavery was banned, becuase of the Missouri Compromise. He then was captured by his former master and taken back to Missouri, so Dred Scott sued claiming that his residency in the free state made him a free person. His master argued that and said no pure-blooded African American of slaves could be a citizen as stated in Article Three in the constitution.
Constitutional question
The constitutional question is does this go against the 5th amendment and to Missouri Compromise? Do those laws grant Dred Scott the immunity he needs to be a free man?
The Lasting Effect
Dred Scott was a slave so therefore he didn't have the rights to sue as a free man usually does. Chief justice Taney came to the conclusion that no pure-blooded slave has ever been a citizen as stated in Article III, therefore the Missouri Compromise is deemed unconstitutional.