Respuesta :
Answer:
When it was written in 1787, the
constitution, in effect, permitted slavery. Many of
the founders owned slaves. Others opposed
slavery.
They hotly contested the issue of how to
deal with slavery during the Constitutional
Convention, and the problem of slavery
continued to plague the new nation. By the
1850’s some states had forbidden slavery while
others still protected it.
In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, was taken
by his master to Rock Island, Illinois, a town in a
free state. His master later took him to the
Wisconsin Territory, where the Missouri
Compromise of 1820, a federal law, had
forbidden slavery. His master then brought Scott
back to Missouri, a slave state. Scott brought
suit against his master claiming himself a free
man because he had resided in areas that had
banned slavery.
The Constitutional Issue
The case involved three issues: (1)
Scott had lived in the free state of Illinois. Did he
become free while living there? Should Missouri
have to recognize that freedom? (2) Scott had
traveled to the Wisconsin territory, which
Congress had declared a free territory in the
Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and prohibited
slavery in all of the American territories north and
west of the Ohio River. This region, called the
Northwest Territory, consisted of land now
occupied by the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan, Wisconsin and the eastern portion of
Minnesota.. Did he become free while living
there, and should Missouri have to recognize that
freedom? (3) Did the Supreme Court have the
power or jurisdiction to hear this case?
Scott’s Claim
Scott claimed that by bringing him to
Illinois, his master had freed him. Illinois did not
allow slavery. Therefore, any slave brought there
became free. Once Scott became free in Illinois
no Missouri Law could turn him into a slave
again. Scott’s lawyers further argued that
Missouri should recognize the laws of another
state in the Union.
Scott also claimed that he was free
under the Missouri Compromise. Passed by
Congress and recognized as the law of the land
since 1820, the Missouri Compromise prohibited
slavery in all the federal territories north of the
36°30’ latitude, the southern boundary of
Missouri. When Scott’s master brought him to
Fort Snelling, (in the Wisconsin Territory) in what
would become the State of Minnesota, Scott had
also become free. Even if Missouri chose not to
recognize the laws of Illinois, the constitution
required all states to recognize the laws of
Congress, as the supremacy clause of the
Constitution (Article VI, Paragraph 2) clearly
stated.
Finally, Scott’s lawyers argued that the
Supreme Court had the power to hear this case.
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution
established the jurisdiction (authority to hear
cases) of the federal courts. This jurisdiction
extended to cases “between citizens of different
states.” Scott’s master was now dead, leaving
him technically under the control of his dead
master’s brother-in-law, John F.A. Sandford, who
lived in New York (notice that the case is called
Scott V. Sandford because during the
proceedings a clerk misspelled the name of the
defendant). Scott claimed that if he was free
then he had to be a citizen of Missouri. As such,
he could sue a citizen of New York in federal
court.
The Decision
By a 7 to 2 vote, the Supreme Court
ruled against Scott on all three issues. In an
extraordinary decision, all nine judges wrote
opinions that totaled 248 pages. Chief Justice
Roger B. Taney’s fifty-five page“ Opinion of the
Court” expressed the collective view of the
majority.
