https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk en-us 2021-01-09 16:42:13 UTC 2025-09-30 21:28:52 UTC hello@padlet.com hwilso0020 https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070039826 Chief Justice:  Roger Taney
Associate Justice: John McLean,  James M. Wayne,
John Catron,  Peter V. Daniel, Samuel Nelson, Robert C. Grier
Benjamin R. Curtis , John A. Campbell]]> 2021-01-09 17:16:21 UTC https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070039826 hwilso0020 https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070041292 The disagreement was on whether the new states would be "free" states where slavery would be illegal, or whether they would be "slave" states like the ones already existing in the South.
Congress passed the "Missouri Compromise", which admitted Maine in the union as a free state and created Missouri as out of a portion of the Louisiana Purchase territory and admitted it as a slave state, but at the same time prohibited slavery in the area north of the Parallel 36'90, where most of the territory lay.
The legal effects of a slaveowner taking his slaves from Missouri into the free territory north of the 36°30′ north parallel, as well as the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise itself, eventually came to a head in the Dred Scott case.]]> 2021-01-09 17:17:20 UTC https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070041292 hwilso0020 https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070044673 In November 1853, Scott filed a federal lawsuit with the United States Circuit Court for the District of Missouri. Sandford ruled against Scott, holding him and his family in slavery. In December 1854, Scott appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court. The trial began on February 11, 1856.]]> 2021-01-09 17:19:36 UTC https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070044673 hwilso0020 https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070045755 This  case presented three major issues/questions to the Supreme Court: 
1. The first, whether Scott, or any Negro, was a citizen and had the right to even sue the Court.
2. The second, whether Scott's status as a slave was affected by his residence in a free territory. 
3. And the third, whether Congress had the power to ban slavery in other territories.

Chief Justice Roger Taney answered these questions, by expressing that's felt that all people of African descent, free or enslaved, were not United States citizens and therefore had no right to sue in federal court. He also wrote that the Fifth Amendment protected slave owner rights because enslaved workers were their legal property. The decision also argued that the Missouri Compromise legislation was unconstitutional.This meant that Congress had no power to prevent the spread of slavery.

]]> 2021-01-09 17:20:22 UTC https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070045755 hwilso0020 https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070054590
The Scotts argued that when a slave resides in a free state, freedom is entitled to him and cannot be revoked if he returns to a slave state. Also, they argued that people of African descent could be United States citizens.]]> 2021-01-09 17:25:31 UTC https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070054590 hwilso0020 https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070056648 The defendant challenged the 1820 Missouri Compromise, because of this Scott was denied the right to freedom. ]]> 2021-01-09 17:26:43 UTC https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070056648 hwilso0020 https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070069271 South Opinion : The South like it was their 5th amendment right and they were obligated to defend slavery.
North Opinion: A lot of Northern courts and politicians rejected Scott v. Sandford as binding because, people can become citizens of the United States.

The South felt that Congress had exceeded its authority in the Missouri Compromise because it had no power to abolish slavery in the other territories.]]> 2021-01-09 17:34:29 UTC https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070069271 hwilso0020 https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070081483 Both, Curtis and Mclean argued, that slaves were members of the nation and could not be denied the right to claim citizenship.]]> 2021-01-09 17:43:11 UTC https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070081483 hwilso0020 https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070084450 The significance of this case is the Federal Court ruled that Scott was still a slave. They ruled that no African American could be a citizen and that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was in fact, unconstitutional.]]> 2021-01-09 17:45:16 UTC https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070084450 hwilso0020 https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070093261 In my opinion this case is an example of judicial restraint.I think its restraint because,The ruling declared that slaves were not protected by the Constitution and could never become citizens]]> 2021-01-09 17:51:23 UTC https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070093261 hwilso0020 https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070153498 2021-01-09 18:35:29 UTC https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070153498 hwilso0020 https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070156767 2021-01-09 18:37:51 UTC https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070156767 hwilso0020 https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070246027 2021-01-09 19:54:37 UTC https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070246027 hwilso0020 https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070247762 2021-01-09 19:56:24 UTC https://padlet.com/hwilso0020/212m77bnzdu2wjmk/wish/1070247762