Dred Scott vs. Sanford
1857

The fine line between preservation of property and the concept of a "free state" was called into question in a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court and became the first ruling to declare a national law unconstitutional since Marbury vs. Madison. Dred Scott was a slave whose owner had lived in Illinois for an extended time, and Scott and his wife Harriet lived in the state with him. After returning to the South, Scott sued his owner for his and his wife's freedom, demanding that since they had lived for an extended period of time in a state that prohibited slavery within its borders, they should no longer be slaves. Originally his case was upheld by the Missourian state courts, but then the decision was reversed, leading Scott to appeal eventually to the highest court possible. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ultimately ruled that Scott was not free because he had lived in a free state, meaning that there really was no such thing as a free state (making the Missouri Compromise which forbade slavery above the 36 30" line unconstitutional). He also said that blacks were "inferior beings", had no rights that whites needed to respect, and should be enslaved for their own good.