The statement by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case primarily reinforced the idea that slaves were considered property under federal law. This legal reasoning was central to the Supreme Court's decision, which declared that African Americans could not be considered citizens and thus had no standing to sue in federal court. By affirming that slavery was a guaranteed right protected by the Constitution, the decision effectively upheld the institution of slavery and denied enslaved individuals any legal rights or protections. This ruling had a profound impact on the status of slaves in the United States, entrenching the notion of slavery as a property right that could be upheld and protected by the government.
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 affirmed the rights of slaves as citizens under the Constitution. It affirmed the rights of slaves as citizens under the Constitution. 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.
1 answer