According to Dred Scott's lawsuit, how had his rights been violated?
Dred Scott argued that his rights had been violated on multiple grounds in his lawsuit.
First, Scott claimed that he had a right to freedom because he had resided in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory, both of which were free territories or states where he could not be held as a slave. However, when he returned to Missouri with his owner, he was still held in bondage, which he argued was a violation of his rights.
Second, Scott contended that because he had resided in a free territory, he should be considered a free citizen under the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The compromise prohibited slavery in certain territories, including the part of the Louisiana Purchase where Scott had lived. He believed that this should grant him his freedom and the rights of a citizen.
Lastly, Scott claimed that his rights were violated because his owner had taken him to free territories and states where slavery was not allowed, and yet Scott was not granted his freedom in those places. He argued that the fact that he had been treated as a slave in free jurisdictions further violated his rights.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court rejected Scott's arguments and ruled against him, stating that he was not a citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, claiming that Congress had no authority to ban slavery in the territories. This ruling deeply impacted the rights of enslaved individuals and contributed to the tensions leading up to the American Civil War.