The United States Supreme Court's Decision,
In Dred Scott v. Sandford
By: Joe Ryan
Given the way in which the lawyers had pleaded and tried the case, Chief Justice Roger Taney's majority might have easily dismissed Scott's appeal on the basis that, by virtue of Missouri law, when Scott voluntarily returned with his family to Missouri, his legal status reverted to that of a slave and, thus, he was not a citizen of Missouri with standing to sue in the federal courts.
The Court's majority certainly had the necessary factual underpinnings for this ruling plainly in its hands: Scott had admitted in the agreed statement of facts upon which the case had been tried, that he had been a slave when he left Missouri and traveled with Emerson to Minnesota Territory, and that he had voluntarily returned to Missouri. With this undisputed evidence in hand, The Court, led by Chief Justice Taney, could have simply pointed to the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court, in Emerson v. Scott (1852), which held that, despite his travels with Emerson to Illinois and Minesota Territory, Scott was still a slave. Since Missouri did not recognize slaves as citizens, Scott did not possess the necessary legal status to sue in federal courts.
http://joeryancivilwar.com/Civil-War-Subjects/Dred-Scott/Chief-Justice-Taney-Dred-Scott.html
