LAD #18: Dred Scott Supreme Court Case

In the appealed case of Dred Scott vs. Sanford, the Supreme Court decision brought forth by eighty-year old Chief Justice Roger B. Taney agreed with the side of Sanford. These agreements were made on the grounds that Scott, as a slave and a child of parents that were forcefully emigrated from another country to the United States, was not a citizen of this sovereign nation and was thus not entitled to the numerous liberties engraved within the Constitution. Glancing solely at the Constitution for his guidance, Taney claimed that their was no contrast between an enslaved individual and any other piece of property. In accordance to this, not only was Scott wrong in his pursuit of equal protections and liberties under the Constitution, but also that he had no right to sue either a State or Federal court. Also, Sanford was, under the Constitution and his God given rights, entitled to treat Scott as nothing more than a material possession. Too, because Scott was indeed the property of Sanford, Taney had no choice but to ensure his ownership over the enslaved man. This action challenged the entitlements possessed within the Missouri Compromise as Scott lived in Illinois, a free state, but was still considered to be property. Likewise, this took away any chance for Scott to be able to sue in a court controlled by the state of Missouri. Conclusively, Taney deemed the Missouri Compromise as nothing more than unconstitutional.