Question

In the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney said, "[T]he right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guarantied to the citizens of the United States in every State that might desire it... And the Government... is pledged to protect it in all future time if the slave escapes from his owner. This is done in plain words – too plain to be misunderstood. "

How does this statement show the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decision in the case and its impact on the status of slaves in the United States during that time period?

(1 point)
Responses

It established the principle of popular sovereignty in determining the status of slaves.
It established the principle of popular sovereignty in determining the status of slaves.

It reinforced the idea that slaves were considered property under federal law.
It reinforced the idea that slaves were considered property under federal law.

It made the Fugitive Slave Act illegal and granted freedom to enslaved individuals.
It made the Fugitive Slave Act illegal and granted freedom to enslaved individuals.

It affirmed the rights of slaves as citizens under the Constitution.
It affirmed the rights of slaves as citizens under the Constitution.

Answer 1

It reinforced the idea that slaves were considered property under federal law. This statement shows that Chief Justice Taney believed that the Constitution protected the right of slave owners to own and control their slaves as property. This legal reasoning formed the basis of the Supreme Court's decision in the Dred Scott case, which ultimately denied Dred Scott's claim to freedom and reinforced the institution of slavery in the United States at that time.