In the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney said, "[T]he right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guarantied to the citizens of the United States in every State that might desire it... And the Government... is pledged to protect it in all future time if the slave escapes from his owner. This is done in plain words – too plain to be misunderstood. "
How does this statement show the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decision in the case and its impact on the status of slaves in the United States during that time period?
(1 point)
Responses
It established the principle of popular sovereignty in determining the status of slaves.
It established the principle of popular sovereignty in determining the status of slaves.
It affirmed the rights of slaves as citizens under the Constitution.
It affirmed the rights of slaves as citizens under the Constitution.
It reinforced the idea that slaves were considered property under federal law.
It reinforced the idea that slaves were considered property under federal law.
It made the Fugitive Slave Act illegal and granted freedom to enslaved individuals.
It reinforced the idea that slaves were considered property under federal law.
This statement shows the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decision in the case by emphasizing the constitutional protection of slave ownership as property rights. The impact of this decision was that it solidified the status of slaves as property, denying them any rights as citizens and perpetuating the institution of slavery in the United States. Additionally, it reinforced the power of slaveholders to control and seek the return of their escaped slaves under federal law.