APUSH Chapter 19, Part 7 - The Dred Scott Bombshell
How could it be argued that slavery is not in the Constitution?
the word "slavery" is not present
What did the Missouri Supreme Court decide?
they agreed with Scott, freeing him
What did the Court say about a legislature/Congress?
they cannot outlaw slavery
What did the US Supreme Court decide?
they overruled the decision
Why did the Supreme Court favor the South?
they said so with the Dred Scott decision and it is the Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution
What did the Court conclude?
the Missouri Compromise had been unconstitutional all along
Who did the South have on its side?
1. the Supreme Court 2. the president 3. the Constitution
When was the Dred Scott decision handed down by the Supreme Court?
March 6, 1857
What was the bombshell statement the Court made?
a legislature/Congress can't outlaw slavery b/c it goes against the 5th Amendment saying a person's property cannot be taken w/o due process of law
Who was Dred Scott?
a slave whose master took him north into free states where he lived for many years
What did Scott's new master do?
appealed to the US Supreme Court
What was the problem with saying that since the word "slavery" is not in the Constitution, it's not allowed?
by using this argument, the 10th Amendment said anything not in the Constitution is left up to the states, and the Southern states would vote for slavery
What happened after Scott's master's death?
he sued for his freedom from his new master, claiming that he had been in free territory and was therefore free
What did the Dred Scott case inflame?
millions of abolitionists against slavery and even those who didn't care much about it
While Southerners were ecstatic about the decision, what were they inflamed by?
northern defiance
Who did the North have on its side?
only had Congress (which was now banned from outlawing slavery)
Why did the 5th Amendment favor the South?
says Congress could not take away property, in this case, slaves
What did Chief Justice Roger Taney state?
that no slave could be a citizen of the US in his justification
How could it be argued that slavery is in the Constitution?
the 3/5ths compromise is in there
