Dred+Scott+v+Sanford


 * __Dred Scott V. Sandford__ **
 * Argued: Feb 11-14, 1896 **
 * Reargued: Dec 15-18, 1856 **
 * Decided: March 6, 1857 **

//**A Case Involving**//: __ Weather a slave who resided in a free state was still considered property or free __

__ Dred Scott was a slave who lived in the free state of Illinois and Wisconsin before coming back to his slave state of Missouri. IN hopes that he would be free he appealed to the court stating that since he was in a free state he would be considered a free man. __ __ All slaves regardless of location would still be considered property. __
 * //Background:// **
 * //Main Issue Presented to the Court// **

//**Case before Court**// Scott: Argued unsuccessfully for his freedom claiming that his residence in a free state made him a free man. The federal district court decided against Scott and the case came on appeal to the supreme court.


 * //Decision: 7// **__ votes for Sandford, 2 votes against __

Chief Justice Taney delivered his opinion: The court ruled that since Scott was a slave under Article III & IV of the constitution nobody but a citizen of the US could be a citizen of any state and that only congress gave national citizenship. In that process the court decided to end the Missouri Compromise which was an agreement passed between pro/anti slavery factions that regulated slavery in the western territories.
 * //Majority reasons:// **

// **Dissents reasons:** // Justice Curtis:Felt they did not have jurisdiction to hear Scott case and must have simply dismissed the action by not passing judgement on the merits of the claims. Justice McLean:Felt that the Missouri Compromise should not have been overturned and also stated that the fact blacks could vote in 5 states but were only considered citzens by the country rather than the state was quoting him " More a matter of taste than of law".

[]