Question
Dred Scott v. Sandford Case Brief
Brief Fact Summary.
A slave sought his freedom under the Missouri Compromise.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Slaves are not citizens under the United States Constitution.
Facts.
Dred Scott (Plaintiff) was a slave living in the slave state of Missouri. His owner took him to Illinois and then to Minnesota, which were both free states under the Missouri Compromise. Plaintiff and his owner returned to Missouri, and Plaintiff was sold to Sanford (Defendant). Plaintiff sued Defendant for his freedom, claiming to be a citizen of Missouri, based on having obtained freedom by domicile for a long period in a free state.
Issue.
Can a slave be considered a citizen and as such become entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities granted to citizens under the United States Constitution?
Held.
No. Slaves were not intended to be included under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution. At the time the Constitution was written, slaves were considered an inferior and subordinate class. No state can introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence clearly never intended to include slaves.
The Constitution never intended to confer on slaves or their posterity the blessings of liberty, or any of the personal rights so carefully provided for the citizen. Plaintiff is clearly not a citizen and not entitled to sue. An act of Congress, which deprives a citizen of his property merely because he brought his property into a particular part of the United States does not comport with due process of law. The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. An act of Congress, which prohibits a citizen from owning slaves in any territory in the United States is void. So, Plaintiff did not become free by going into a state, which prohibited slavery.
Discussion.
This case is remembered for the decision that blacks were not citizens, but merely property. It is also remembered for voiding the Missouri Compromise.
Multiple Select Question
What did the Supreme Court decide in Dred Scott v. Sandford?
(Choose 2)
A.
Slavery is unconstitutional.
B.
Black American residents of free states are free.
C.
Asian American residents of free states are free.
D.
Outlawing slavery in a territory is unconstitutional.
E.
The national government can prohibit the expansion of slavery in new territories.
Brief Fact Summary.
A slave sought his freedom under the Missouri Compromise.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Slaves are not citizens under the United States Constitution.
Facts.
Dred Scott (Plaintiff) was a slave living in the slave state of Missouri. His owner took him to Illinois and then to Minnesota, which were both free states under the Missouri Compromise. Plaintiff and his owner returned to Missouri, and Plaintiff was sold to Sanford (Defendant). Plaintiff sued Defendant for his freedom, claiming to be a citizen of Missouri, based on having obtained freedom by domicile for a long period in a free state.
Issue.
Can a slave be considered a citizen and as such become entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities granted to citizens under the United States Constitution?
Held.
No. Slaves were not intended to be included under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution. At the time the Constitution was written, slaves were considered an inferior and subordinate class. No state can introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence clearly never intended to include slaves.
The Constitution never intended to confer on slaves or their posterity the blessings of liberty, or any of the personal rights so carefully provided for the citizen. Plaintiff is clearly not a citizen and not entitled to sue. An act of Congress, which deprives a citizen of his property merely because he brought his property into a particular part of the United States does not comport with due process of law. The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. An act of Congress, which prohibits a citizen from owning slaves in any territory in the United States is void. So, Plaintiff did not become free by going into a state, which prohibited slavery.
Discussion.
This case is remembered for the decision that blacks were not citizens, but merely property. It is also remembered for voiding the Missouri Compromise.
Multiple Select Question
What did the Supreme Court decide in Dred Scott v. Sandford?
(Choose 2)
A.
Slavery is unconstitutional.
B.
Black American residents of free states are free.
C.
Asian American residents of free states are free.
D.
Outlawing slavery in a territory is unconstitutional.
E.
The national government can prohibit the expansion of slavery in new territories.
Answers
GPT-4o mini
In the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, the Supreme Court made the following key decisions:
**D. Outlawing slavery in a territory is unconstitutional.**
The Court held that the government could not prohibit slavery in any territory, effectively rendering the Missouri Compromise and similar legislative measures void.
**A. Slavery is unconstitutional.**
This option is misleading. The Supreme Court did not declare slavery itself unconstitutional; rather, it emphasized that slaves were not considered citizens and thus could not bring lawsuits. The decision affirmed the property rights of slave owners.
Based on the options you provided, the most accurate selections reflecting the Court's decision in the case are:
**D. Outlawing slavery in a territory is unconstitutional.**
**(B. Black American residents of free states are free)** is incorrect based on the Court's stance; it indicated that even in free states, African Americans were not recognized as citizens.
Thus, the correct answer would only include option **D.**
If we stick strictly with the provided options without any misinterpretations:
**The two correct choices based on the decision are:**
- **D. Outlawing slavery in a territory is unconstitutional.**
(Note: I'm not selecting a second option since none accurately reflect the Court's ruling besides D).
**D. Outlawing slavery in a territory is unconstitutional.**
The Court held that the government could not prohibit slavery in any territory, effectively rendering the Missouri Compromise and similar legislative measures void.
**A. Slavery is unconstitutional.**
This option is misleading. The Supreme Court did not declare slavery itself unconstitutional; rather, it emphasized that slaves were not considered citizens and thus could not bring lawsuits. The decision affirmed the property rights of slave owners.
Based on the options you provided, the most accurate selections reflecting the Court's decision in the case are:
**D. Outlawing slavery in a territory is unconstitutional.**
**(B. Black American residents of free states are free)** is incorrect based on the Court's stance; it indicated that even in free states, African Americans were not recognized as citizens.
Thus, the correct answer would only include option **D.**
If we stick strictly with the provided options without any misinterpretations:
**The two correct choices based on the decision are:**
- **D. Outlawing slavery in a territory is unconstitutional.**
(Note: I'm not selecting a second option since none accurately reflect the Court's ruling besides D).