LAD #18: Dred Scott Case

In lue of the Supreme Court's decision of Dred Scott vs. Sanford, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney agreed with Sanford.  His decisiveness was the causation of the fact that Scott, being a slave born of parents who emigrated to the United States from a foreign country, was not an American citizen and therefore not guaranteed any basic Constitutional rights.  Taney loosely interpreted that America's prized document made no clear distinctions between slaves and property -- technically Scott was never in position or viable to claim his civil and liberal rights as a person, much less present his case to a court (State of Federal).  Moreover, Scott's owner (Sanford) -- who was a legitimate and legal citizen of the United States -- was protected and backed by the Constitution.  Since Scott was a slave, the property of Sanford, the Courts were left with no other option than to hand over Scott to Sanford.  Yet, this challenged and rivaled the authority and written consent of the Missouri Compromise because despite Scott's habituation in Illinois (a free slave state) as a free man, he was still considered the property and belonging of Sanford and therefore had no basis to sue in a slave-state (Missouri).  In the end, Taney found the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional.