In the Dred Scott case, the court originally sided with Sanford. How constitutional or unconstitutional the Missouri Compromise was, along with many other factors that were not taken into consideration.The issue of citizenship and the Missouri Compromise were eventually given off to Justice Nelson to rewrite and decide. Judge Roger Taney was given final say on the decision, however, because Justice Nelson supposedly did not represent the views of the entire group, while Justice Taney did. African American people were not considered citizens of the U.S and therefore they would not be allowed to sue in court. He also decided that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because territories could not deny freedoms of speech, right to life and rights to property, which were all founding principles of this country. Since slaveholders above the 36 30 parallel didn't have a right to their property (as slaves were considered property) it was unconstitutional. Because of this, Dred Scott was not considered free because he was going to live in Illinois. Scott tried to sue for his freedom but, since he was not considered a citizen he didn't have the right to sue in court. In the end the case was thrown out and Scott remained a slave, which is unfortunate because if he had won- it could have been a big step towards racial equality.
The Dred Scott case can be related to the three-fifths compromise, because it really stems back to that. The compromise was made when the foundations of the country were being established. During this, the slaves were not considered citizens and were only counted as 3/5 of a person. Similarly, in the Scott case- Dred Scott was not considered a citizen of the United States just because he was African American
No comments:
Post a Comment