The Missouri Compromise was created to maintain the fragile balance between slave and free states. Its purpose was put to the test when a slave, Dred Scott, filed a lawsuit against his late owner’s widow, Mrs. Emerson, for false imprisonment. He was originally purchased in Missouri and then brought to Illinois to live and work. Under the Missouri Compromise slavery was allowed in Missouri but prohibited in Illinois. Dred Scott believed that his residency in Illinois made him a free citizen. His case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 as Dred Scott v. Sandford. The verdict declared Scott a slave and the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. In a 7-2 vote, Dred Scott v. Sandford was decided because of the historical context and the Fifth Amendment.
Dred Scott v. Sandford occurred while tensions over the slavery debate were high. Over the course of eleven years and five trials, sectional tensions increased until America was on the brink of a Civil War. The Southerners ardently supported slavery as it was an economic asset for their plantations. The Northerners, influenced by the abolitionist movement, strongly opposed the idea of slavery, stating that it was morally wrong. Like most Americans of the time, the judges themselves held strong opinions about slavery which
…show more content…
Taney declared the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional because of the 5th Amendment. The agreement banned slavery in the Louisiana Territory north of the 36° 30’ Missouri Compromise Line. Chief Justice Taney believed that denying citizens their property in a certain area of the U.S. was not within the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law” (“Dred Scott v. Sandford.” Landmark Cases). Since Emerson had not committed any crime, to take his property away would not be due process. The court ruled that denying a citizen his property in a specific area of America was