what did the dredd vs. scott court ruling established?
i have 66 questions due tomorrow and i cant find it in my textbook help!?
- History_101Lv 47 years agoFavorite Answer
In laymen: The Dred Scott decision ruled that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional. It prohibited slavery north of the 36'30" parallel. In dictum, the decision also denied that any person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States. Sojourns into areas which prohibited slavery could not overcome the property rights of United States citizens under the Fifth Amendment. And the 1787 Northwest Ordinance could not confer citizenship to nonwhites.
The Scott decision provided impetus for Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. It also served as a foundation for the 1866 Freedmen Bureau Act which granted Freedmen the same rights of whites, including the "constitutional right to bear arms" and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which is still with us today codified under 28 U.S.C. 1983. More importantly, it gave Congress the idea to adopt the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified by the States (required by the Confederate States except Tennessee under the Reconstruction Acts).
Hope this helpsSource(s): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott BA HISTORY; MA CANDIDATE HISTORY
- RMLv 57 years ago
Dredd Scott v. Sanford case was not quite as simple as some people make it sound. Yes, you can look it up on the links that other people provide. The nitty gritty of the case is that his owner was in the military, and he got moved around from place to place that included northern and southern states. He also got married It was only when his owner died and his owner's daughter wanted to take him and move him around as part of the inheritance that he sued for his freedom. Ironically, he could have gotten his freedom by refusing to return to the south with his owner before his owner's death.
- 7 years ago
The link is from a law school in Chicago.
The quick answer is that it declared that an african american, held as a slave, had no right to sue his "master" for his freedom.
The actual case was called Dred Scott v. Sandford. Sandford was an abolitionist who had acquired ownership of Scott, and they started the lawsuit in order to establish the precedent that a slave could sue for his freedom. When the result went against them, Sandford freed him anyway.