Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1857) is a notorious Supreme Court decision that held that an African-American slave could not sue for his freedom in federal court becau he was property and not a citizen. However, in attempt ing to ttle definitively the controversy over slavery in the territories, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney shattered the legislative connsus crafted as a result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, trigger ed scathing condemnations and outrage among antislavery forces, and propelled the nation fur ther toward civil war.
有一种爱情In 1846 Dred Scott, a slave, filed suit for his freedom against his owner in a Missouri state court, alleging that, having lived with his for mer master, an army surgeon, in the free state of Illinois and in Wisconsin Territory, he was legally free under Missouri law. The lower court ruled in Scott’s favor, bad on veral precedents in the state’s ca law recognizing that slaves in Missouri were entitled to freedom by virtue of prior residence in a free state or territory. However, despite the fact that the established legal princi ple in Missouri was “once free, always fr ee,”the Missouri Supreme Court overturned the lower court decision. Scott, with the backing of white abolitionist supporters, appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Cour t.
The Court might easily have sidestepped the controversial political issue; an 1851 Supreme Court decision had affirmed that state courts had the power to determine the status of African Americans with
回族十三姓in their jurisdictions, and the federal merits of the ca were questionable. However, Chief Justice Taney, a proslavery jurist fr om Maryland, was determined that the Court would succeed where the nation’s political institutions had failed in resolving unequivocally the national controversy over slavery in the territories.
The Cour t’s decision was handed down on March 6, 1857. Writing for a 7–2 majority, Taney declared that, becau Scott was a slave, he was not a citizen of the United States and had no standing to sue in federal court; Scott’s suit was therefore dismisd for lack of jurisdiction. Taney asrted that the nation’s founders had never envisioned citizenship for African Americans, who he described as “beings of an inferior or der” with “no rights which the white man was bound to r espect.
笔记本电脑功率Furthermore, the Cour t’s majority af firmed that Scott’s status as a slave had not changed as a result of his residency in Illinois and W isconsin. Becau the Fifth Amendment prohibits Congr ess from depriving citizens of their property without due process of law, Taney wrote, slaves could be taken into any territory, free or otherwi, with out affecting their legal status as private pr oper t y. Therefore, Taney determined that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority in the Missouri Compromi of 1820 when it had pr ohib ited slavery in part of the territories, and that act was accordingly declared invalid.
乒乓球大赛Despite the fact that the Missouri Com promi had been repealed by the Kansas- Nebraska Act in 1854, the ctional compr omi had enjoyed widespread support in the North for decades, and the Supreme Cour t’s decision was widely denounced and condemned in the media, Congress, and the abolitionist movement申请文书
中国飞行试验研究院>湘子桥
企业内部as a proslavery conspiracy to extend the “peculiar institution” nationwide. Although popular among proslavery forces in the South, Taney’s decision undermined the authority and pr estige of the Supreme Court, shattered any possibility of peaceful compromi between pro- and anti- slavery interests, and spurred the growth of the new Republican Party. It would ultimately take the Civil War and the passage of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to overturn the effects of the Dred Scott decision.
