1. APUSH – Spiconardi

2.   In the 1830s, Dred Scott, a slave, accompanied his owner from Missouri to Illinois and later the territory of Wisconsin  Scott lived in these free areas for 10 years  Upon his return to Missouri, and having been unable to purchase his freedom, Scott sued for his freedom in 1847, claiming that residence on free soil had made him a free man  After years in appeal courts, the case reached the Supreme Court Background

3.   Questions before the court  Could a black person be a citizen and therefore sue in federal court?  Did residence in a free state make Scott free?  Did Congress possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? Scott v. Sandford (1857)

4.  “The African race in the united states even when free, are everywhere a degraded class, and exercise no political influence. The privileges they are allowed to enjoy, are accorded to them as a matter of kindness and benevolence rather than right…They are not looked upon as citizens by the contracting parties who formed the Constitution. They were evidently not supposed to be included by the term citizens.” ~Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney

5.   The Decision  In a 6 – 3 decision, Scott had no right to sue for his freedom  This should have ended here, but Chief Justice Roger Taney pressed on Scott v. Sandford (1857)

6. 

7.   Taney’s Opinion of the Court  Congress possessed no power under the Constitution to bar slavery from a territory  The Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional  Any prohibition of slave expansion into a territory was unconstitutional  In essence, popular sovereignty was undermined since the Kansas- Nebraska Act was an act of Congress Scott v. Sandford (1857)

8. 