Roger Sherman would disagree with Justice Taney's argument in Dred Scott v. Sandford, as he would have supported the rights and equality of all citizens.
Roger Sherman, a staunch advocate for equality and individual rights, would likely have stood in stark opposition to Chief Justice Taney's verdict in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case.
As a Northern justice deeply rooted in principles of fairness and equality, Sherman would have vehemently disagreed with Taney's assertion that Black individuals could not be considered citizens under the Constitution.
Sherman's foundational beliefs revolved around the notion of equal rights for all citizens, irrespective of race.
He would have vehemently opposed Taney's rationale that Blacks were not entitled to citizenship and the accompanying rights.
Sherman firmly believed in the inherent dignity and equal status of every individual, advocating for equal treatment under the law.
Moreover, Justice Sherman's views would likely have conflicted with Taney's assertion that Congress lacked the authority to restrict slavery in the territories.
Sherman, with his commitment to principles of justice and equality, would have likely supported legislative measures aimed at curtailing the spread of slavery into new territories.
He might have argued for Congress's constitutional authority to regulate slavery's expansion as a means to uphold the nation's moral principles.
In essence, Roger Sherman's beliefs in the rights and equality of all citizens, regardless of race, would have led him to oppose Taney's stance in the Dred Scott case.
His commitment to justice and equality would have fueled a dissenting perspective, advocating for the recognition of the rights of Black individuals and Congress's authority to prevent the spread of slavery.