LAD #18: Dred Scott Case

This appealed Supreme Court case was Dred Scott v. Sanford, and the aging Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled with Stanford that Scott, as a slave, and the child of parents who were not citizens of the United States, was therefore not a citizen and not allowed any of the rights provided in the Constitution. Taney claimed that the Constitution made no distinction between slaves and other forms of property. So, as property, Scott was not in the position to claim his rights and was not entitled to sue. Scott's owner, Sanford, was a citizen of the country, and he was granted these unalienable rights, which included property rights. Since Scott was a slave and therefore property, the court had to ensure Sanford's ownership. This challenged the Missouri Compromise because although Scott lived in Illinois, a free state, that did not change his status as a slave. As a result, Taney found the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional.