Scott v. Sanford (Dred Scott Decision of 1857)

Don't get me wrong. This decesion was reprehensible. But what else could the courts do when the constitution shamefully allowed slavery?

Dred Scott after being brought by his slave owner John Emerson to free states filed suit against his widow upon his death contending he was emancipated by the laws of the free states whereby he could file suit. The Supreme Court however rejected his contention and returned him to his master (who eventually freed him). Justice Taney wrote the opinion for the court- striking down the Missouri Compromise in the process- as unconstitutional; And proceeded to declare blacks sub human- not fit to be citizens. Beyond the sickening and peverted ruling even the rationale is fatally flawed. The reciprocity of state laws to be upheld for those visiting that state and should therefore apply to those individuals there within. Easily understood if the driving age in one state is 16 and another 18, the 16 year old can obtain a license in that state and drive in the other upon return. Dred Scott should have been allowed to sue for his freedom as he was afforded rights in that state to do so. This ... Read more

I'm giving it 5 stars to make a point. I actually think the decision was horrible, but correct from a strictly legal perspective. Fact is, the Constitution quite clearly allowed for the ownership of human beings as property and therefor that ownership was protected by due process. There was good reason abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison held "Constitution burnings." The Constitution was meaningless until after the Civil War. The 13th and 14th Amendments overturned Dred Scott. But to deny the soundness of this decision is really to soft-pedal the fact that the Supreme law of the land was racist and brutal when it came to slavery until those amendments were passed. George Bush's lame attempt to link this to Roe v. Wade was not only morally reprehensible, but legally inept.

Hate to say it, but by the flawed law of the land at that time, the court was right. It also got fixed the right way as was already pointed out. Too bad that we had to kick the crap out of each other in a war that still isn't over for some idiots to fix it.

While the ruling is reprehensible based on the content, I'm sorry to say I think there was constitutional justification, based on the Constitution as it appeared in 1857. The Court did not overstep its bounds, instead requiring the 13th and 14th Amendments to right the wrong. A social issue (in this case, slavery) was fixed the constitutional way, even though it took a violent war. Instead of unconstitutionally making its own laws (as the court has done ever since, starting with the disgusting Plessy verdict), the court followed the Constitution and Congress and the states acted correctly to end slavery through the Constitutional Amendment process. **UPDATE** I realize that Dred Scott overturned the Missouri Compromise. Looking back on what I wrote, I see that I was unclear. I was refering only to the part of the ruling actually relating to specifics of the case - that Dred Scott did not have standing and that the court did not have the power to rule slavery unconstitutional. I think t... Read more

The constitution said at the time that slaves counted as people when determining electoral votes. (or at least parts of people) Seems to me like they're people.

This case ended with a person being defined as property. Not a person, but a object that can be owned and done whatever with. This doesn't sound right to me.

I can't believe anyone would vote 'Good' or 'Great' on this. What kind of cold-hearted throw-backs to the 19th century are you? I wouldn't post anything and identify myself here either if I were you. Sheesh!

The Dred Scott Decision was one of the most despicable cases in history. It basically stated that a slave could not sue his owner because technically a slave is property.