Question

(1) The Court is of the opinion that Dred Scott is not a citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution and is not entitled to sue in its courts…..

(2) The right of property in a slave is expressly affirmed in the Constitution. And the government is pledged to protect this right in all future time if the slaves escapes from his owner…..

(3) Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the Court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind [slaves] in the territory of the U.S. north of the line mentioned is not [permitted] by the Constitution and is therefore void.

Ruling of Justice Roger Taney, Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)


Based on the excerpt, which conclusion can be drawn about Chief Justice Taney’s decision in the Dred Scott case?


a
Scott was a citizen of the United States.
b
By living in Missouri, Scott was no longer a slave.
c
Scott was considered as property that could not be taken from its owner.
d
The Missouri Compromise allowed Scott to bring a case to the Supreme Court.

Answer 1

C. Scotty was considered as property that could not be taken from its owner.

Answer 2

yea i agree the answer is c

Step-by-step explanation: