In the Dred Scott v. Sanford case what did the Supreme Court decide?

[curran]

A. Freed slaves cannot be denied property rights without due process of law
B. Freed slaves cannot own property
C. Freed slaves were not citizens and cannot sue
D. Freed slaves were citizens with full rights

[orson19]

C. At this point in time, slaves were considered property. As such, Mr. Scott did not have any rights to sue over their alleged violation. Racist? yes. Ridiculous from a 21st Century perspective? yes. Legal then? Unfortunately, yes.

[stanciyf]

The correct answer is C. The Court held that a black person, slave or free, could not be a citizen of the United States, and therefore was not entitled to sue in federal court.

Dred Scott was owned by an Army officer who was a resident of Missouri. The Army officer was assigned to various posts, including the State of Illinois, and territory in which, pursuant to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, slavery was prohibited. At that time, the general rule was that if a master voluntarily took his slave into free territory, and remained there a long time, so that he and the slave became residents, the slave was free. Also suggesting that Dred Scott had become free was the fact that his master (Emerson) permitted him to marry another slave, Harriett.

Unfortunately for Dred Scott, he did not sue for his freedom while he was in free territory. He permitted Emerson to take him to Louisiana and then back to Missouri, both of which were slave states. After Emerson died, Scott sued for his freedom. Now, the rule in Missouri was that if a slave lived in a free territory a long time, so as to become a resident, he became free, and that freedom would be recognized in the event he returned to Missouri. Yet, Missouri had the right to determine the status of persons who were present within its borders. The Missouri trial court ruled that Scott was free, but the Missouri Supreme Court reversed about 30 years of precedent and declared that Scott, upon returning to Missouri, was a slave.

Scott then sued his new owner (a resident of New York) in federal court. The federal court ruled that it had jurisdiction of the suit, but that since the Missouri state court had decided the case, Scott was bound by the result, and that he was a slave. Scott then took an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

The United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal court had no jurisdiction, because only a citizen could sue in federal court, and that a black, slave or free, could not be a citizen of the United States. In fact, said the Court, a black man had no rights which a white man was bound to respect. The fact that some states allowed blacks to become citizens did not make them citizens of the United States. As racist as all that sounds today, such a decision would not have caused a lot of controversy back then, and in fact, it was what most people were expecting, which is why the case did not attract a lot of attention as it was making its progress through the federal court system. This is where the Court should have stopped. But, oh, no, Roger Taney had to continue, and tell us how he would have decided the case if the Court did have jurisdiction.

In his view, Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories; therefore, the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, and Scott acquired no freedom by living in those territories which the Missouri Compromise had declared to be free.

This created a furor among people in the North, who were opposed to slavery in the territories, and emboldened the South, divided feelings, made compromise difficult or impossible, and led to the Civil War only four years later.