Final answer:
Dred Scott's claim for freedom was based on his residence in free territories, the constitutionality of slavery, and the authority of Congress to regulate slavery. The Supreme Court ruled against Scott, declaring that he had no standing to sue since blacks could not be citizens, that slaves were considered property under the Constitution, and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories.
Step-by-step explanation:
Reasoning Behind Dred Scott's Claim
The Dred Scott decision, formally known as Dred Scott v. Sandford, was a landmark Supreme Court case in 1857. The key reasoning behind Dred Scott's claim for freedom was based on three main issues:
-
- Residence in Free Territories: Dred Scott argued that his residence in free territories, which were areas where slavery was banned, conferred upon him the status of a free man.
-
- Constitutionality of Slavery: The Court, however, decided that the Constitution protected slavery in the states where it was already established, and viewed slaves as property rather than individuals with rights.
-
- Authority of Congress: Scott's case also questioned Congress's authority to regulate slavery in the territories, leading to the Court's assertion that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in federal territories, thus rendering parts of the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court's decision, delivered by Chief Justice Roger Taney, stated that blacks could not be citizens of the United States, effectively denying Scott the right to sue for his freedom in a federal court.