How did the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford affect the debate over slavery?
In 1856, James Buchanan, a Democrat who believed that the federal government should not interfere with the institution of slavery, was elected president. Two days after Buchanan's inauguration in March 1857, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which is widely regarded as the most disastrous decision in the Court's history.
Dred Scott was a slave whose owner had taken him from Missouri north to Illinois and Wisconsin, then left him there to work for others. After his owner died, Scott sued for his freedom, claiming that living in a free territory had made him free.
The Supreme Court ruled against Scott 7 to 2. Chief Justice Roger Taney, a pro-slavery Democrat, used Scott's case as an opportunity to issue a sweeping ruling in defense of slavery. Rather than confine his decision to the facts of Scott's case, Taney ruled that:
1. Black Americans were not citizens
2. Black Americans could never become citizens
3. Slaves were property, and Congress had no power to interfere with property rights. Thus, the Missouri Compromise and all other restrictions on the spread of slavery were unconstitutional.
The Court's ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford infuriated many Northerners. They charged that pro-slavery men now controlled all three branches of government: Congress was dominated by supporters of spreading slavery under the doctrine of popular sovereignty; the president was a pro-slavery Democrat; and the Supreme Court contained five Southerners and two pro-slavery Northerners. Pro-slavery Americans cheered Dred Scott as the law of the land.