Dred Scott Case: Majority Opinion

The Dred Scott case involved a slave, Dred Scott, being taken to a free territory for a few years and still enslaved. Later when Scott was returned to his slave state he decided to sue his owner for freedom. Since he was in the free territory for several years, Dred Scott believed that he should be free. The Court ruled that Dred Scott was not a citizen therefore he could not sue for his freedom. There were two main questions that the Supreme Court faced when making this decision. One of them was: Can Congress prohibit slavery in the territories? This is the majority argument made by Taney.

Congress cannot take away the rights given under the Constitution from anyone apart of the United States even if it is a territory because it is part of the governments and the citizens. It is the court’s opinion that the act of Congress that prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property north of the Missouri Compromise line is not warranted by the Constitution and is therefore void.

According to Taney, slavery can be taken into free territories because the government cannot deprive a citizen of their property. This caused an uproar in the North.