Summary: Roger Tainey, the man selected by Jackson to aid in the elimination of the bank, presided over this influential case. The eighty year-old Chief Justice sided with Sanford in the case, proclaiming that due to Scott's status as a slave, and the child of immigrants, was not guaranteed the rights of a citizen of the United States. Taney saw no clear distinction between slaves and property in the Constitution, and so loosely proclaimed that Scott was no different than a rake. Yes, Dred Scott had the same power in a court of law as a rake. Scott was never in a position to declare his rights as a citizen, yet alone sue in court. Scott's owner, Sanford, had the constitution at his back (in the eyes of the judge), something more or less essential to winning court cases. Although Scott was handed back to Sanford, the case raised key questions. Scott was living in Illinois as a free man, so it contradicted the Missouri compromise in allowing him to be viewed as property.
No comments:
Post a Comment