In the Dred Scott vSandford case, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney saidhe right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the ConstitutionThe right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was quarantied to the citizens of the United States in every State that might desire itAnd the Governmentis 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?
Chief Justice Taney's statement demonstrates the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decision in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, which ultimately ruled that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, were not and could never be citizens of the United States. In Taney's view, the Constitution explicitly affirmed the rights of slave owners to their property, including their slaves, and guaranteed the protection of that property by the government. Therefore, the ruling reinforced the idea that slaves were not entitled to the same rights and protections as white citizens, and essentially established them as property rather than as human beings with inherent rights.
This decision had a significant impact on the status of slaves in the United States during that time period, as it further entrenched and institutionalized the system of slavery in the country. It not only denied African Americans their rights as citizens, but also reinforced the dehumanization and commodification of slaves, perpetuating their mistreatment and exploitation. This decision further polarized the nation on the issue of slavery and contributed to the tensions that eventually led to the Civil War.