Dred Scott vs. Sanford 1857
Details of the Case:
Dred Scott, residing in the free state of Illinois, sued for his freedom in the state of Missouri. He argued that since he lived in state where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820, that made him a free man. His master held that no pure blooded Negro of African descent and descendant of slaves was allowed to be a citizen of the U.S., according to Article III of the Constitution.
Constitutional Question:
Was Dred Scott a free man?
Decision and Lasting Effect:
7 voted for Sanford, 2 votes against. U.S. Constitution Amendment 5; Missouri Compromise. Scott was indeed a slave, only Congress could confer national citizenship.
The case deemed the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional in hopes to end the question of slavery forever. This would establish that a non-U.S citizen cannot of law.
Dred Scott, residing in the free state of Illinois, sued for his freedom in the state of Missouri. He argued that since he lived in state where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820, that made him a free man. His master held that no pure blooded Negro of African descent and descendant of slaves was allowed to be a citizen of the U.S., according to Article III of the Constitution.
Constitutional Question:
Was Dred Scott a free man?
Decision and Lasting Effect:
7 voted for Sanford, 2 votes against. U.S. Constitution Amendment 5; Missouri Compromise. Scott was indeed a slave, only Congress could confer national citizenship.
The case deemed the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional in hopes to end the question of slavery forever. This would establish that a non-U.S citizen cannot of law.