I can't think of good reason why.
2006-10-20 06:28:09 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Dred Scott (ca. 1795 – September 17, 1858) was a slave who sued unsuccessfully for his freedom in the famous Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1856. His case was based on the fact that he and his wife Harriet had lived, while slaves, in states and territories where slavery was illegal, including Illinois and parts of the Louisiana Purchase. The court ruled 7 to 2 against Scott, stating that slaves were property, and the court would not deprive slave owners of their property without due process of law according to the Fifth Amendment. This case was one of the major factors leading to the American Civil War.
2006-10-20 06:30:52 · answer #1 · answered by Justsyd 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Dred Scott case made it clear that the North would no longer be a Safe Haven for ruaway slaves. The Chief Justice also averred that a Black Person had no rights that a White Person was bound to honour.I should think those assertions are chilling enough to consider the case a very dark page in history!
2006-10-20 13:38:45 · answer #2 · answered by namazanyc 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In 1846, Dred Scott and his wife Harriet filed suit for their freedom in the St. Louis Circuit Court. This suit began an eleven-year legal fight that ended in the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a landmark decision declaring that Scott remain a slave. This decision contributed to rising tensions between the free and slave states just before the American Civil War.
The records displayed in this exhibit document the Scotts' early struggle to gain their freedom through litigation and are the only extant records of this significant case as it was heard in the St. Louis Circuit Court.
The original Dred Scott case file is located in the Office of the St. Louis Circuit Clerk.
2006-10-20 13:32:18 · answer #3 · answered by thomasrobinsonantonio 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it was important because it was one of the first trials of it's kind. Dred Scott petitioned the government because he had lived in a free state with his master and thought he should be free because of it. Even though the Supreme Court voted Dred Scott was still a slave, but it was a turning point in the nation's history.
2006-10-20 13:37:23 · answer #4 · answered by horselover 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It maintained in the majority decision that BLACKS- slave or free could not sue in US Courts. As slaves they were seen as "property'. Declared the Mo Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional. The Taney decision brought Abraham Lincoln out of political retirement. It gave birth to the Republican Party. It strained relations between the North and South to the breaking point. It doomed Stephen Douglas' dream of being elected President. His Freeport Doctrine in response to the Decision was pure sophisty that displeased both sides. Dred Scott himself was purchased and freed by the Abolitionists following the 1857 case.
2006-10-20 15:10:49 · answer #5 · answered by Mannie H 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Dred Scott decision stated that slaves were not citizens, but property, and therefore did not have the right to sue.
THIS DECISION NOT ONLY PERMITTED THE EXTENSION OF SLAVERY; IT GUARANTEED IT.
2006-10-20 14:47:46 · answer #6 · answered by ammecalo 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because it meant that it was perfectly legal to hold a human being in bondage despite the prohibitions against it in the Constitution. it was an egregious violation of the principles the nation was founded on
2006-10-20 13:36:59 · answer #7 · answered by kapute2 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋