Dred Scott was an African American man who in the 1840’s fought endlessly for his and his wife’s freedom. They had then lived with their owner, army surgeon Dr. John Emerson, at Fort Snelling in Wisconsin. Scott's extended stay in Wisconsin, a free state, gave him the legal standing to make a claim for freedom, where slavery was prohibited under the Missouri Compromise. However, Scott never claimed to his freedom due to his unawareness of his rights at the time or perhaps contentment with his master. Only after Emerson's death, did Scott seek freedom from his new master John Sandford while in Missouri. [1]
Scott argued that because of his extended periods in a free territory, he should be considered a free man even after returning to a slave state. Though courts had ruled this way before, the lawsuit became an 11-year struggle. After several failed attempts to gain freedom, Scott finally appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court, becoming one of the most notorious decisions ever issued. On its way to the Supreme Court, the Dred Scott case grew in significance as slavery was the single most explosive issue in American politics. By the time the case reached the court, it came to have enormous political implications for the entire nation. On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney read the majority opinion of the Court, which stated that slaves were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the Federal Government or the courts. [3] The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which legislated restriction of slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.
Taney, a strong advocate for slavery, addressed the question of African American citizenship and slavery in the territories during the case. In the following excerpt from the majority decision in the case, Taney states “And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property . . . than property of any other description. The only power conferred is the power coupled with the duty of guarding and protecting the owner of his rights." [5] Taney strongly believed that a slave was property and that the Constitution upheld this idea. The Court essentially supported the idea that people could be considered “property”. They followed the rule of law consistent with Due Process in that a person cannot be dispossessed of his property merely because he takes his property into a particular territory. [4] This would imply that a slave could not be considered free. They claimed their intentions were to simply follow Constitutional Law.
The case also took place during a time when slavery was considered acceptable, especially in the Southern states. In fact, the nine justices of the Supreme Court during the case had strong biases regarding slavery. Pro-slavery presidents from the South appointed seven of the nine justices present at the time of Scott’s case, while five of these justices were from slave-holding families. [2] The fact that the first seven U.S. presidents owned slaves also had a strong impact on the Supreme Court’s view of slavery. This made it substantially difficult for Scott to gain his freedom. In addition, President Buchanan who was in office during the case endorsed the court’s decision. In his address, he supported the idea of popular sovereignty, the idea that the voter in each territory could determine the spread of slavery. [6] President Buchanan’s understanding of the protection of slavery in the Constitution was consistent with that of the majority in Congress and in the Supreme Court. However, it was greatly inconsistent with the nation’s highest principles and morality.
The decision made by the Supreme Court did not have the American society’s morality in their best interest as proven by the many events that followed. While the Supreme Court and Southerners supported the Dred Scott Decision, the Northerners strongly opposed. To Northerners, the Dred Scott Decision was considered a declaration of war on all of the ideals and freedoms awarded to them by their states and territories. The furious reaction to the Dred Scott decision in the North compelled politicians in the northern state legislatures to take action, where many attempted to enact legislation that would defy the Supreme Court’s decision. [1] This decision undoubtedly held many flaws. For example, Judge Taney was to issue a ruling in a case where a slave girl committed a crime, however she was not legally considered a person but "property". Because she was not a legal citizen, he was not to punish the girl. Many argued that if he did not punish the slave girl, it would send the message that blacks are not accountable for their crimes. [6] This case displays the flaws within the Dred Scott decision, and that it was going to be impossible to fully enforce all of the laws enacted by the decision.
The Dred Scott decision moved the nation a step closer to Civil War. When the Supreme Court finally issued their decision in the case of Scott v. Sandford, the resulting effect seemed to have been increased tension between the North and South. The outcry over the Dred Scott decision caused Northerners to overwhelmingly vote Republican, in order to represent their stance against slavery. They felt they could achieve this by electing Abraham Lincoln as president because he strongly opposed slavery. Lincoln's election spurred Southern states to one by one secede from the Union, and ultimately lead the Union in the North and the Confederate states in the South to the Civil War. As a result, the Dred Scott decision that intended to protect a citizen’s property rights, actually ravaged the country during the Civil War from 1861 until 1865. [6]
The decision of Scott v. Sandford, was considered by legal scholars to be the worst ever judged by the Supreme Court. [1] It was later overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and declared all persons born in the U.S. to be citizens of the U.S. The events that followed the Dred Scott decision support the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court cannot legislate morality. The overturn of the Dred Scott Decision lead to some of the most significant times in history that has influenced the nation toward a more equal society. Throughout history, we have seen the many changes the U.S. has made based on our beliefs and morals. With that, America continues to attempt to avoid conflict with the nation’s morality and strive toward a more unified society. All in all, the Dred Scott decision had a strong impact on American politics and society. Though at the time the nation was split on whether the decision was the answer to the slavery question or a threat to American freedom, Americans are united in the belief that the Dred Scott case and its controversial decision was an important milestone in American history.
Scott argued that because of his extended periods in a free territory, he should be considered a free man even after returning to a slave state. Though courts had ruled this way before, the lawsuit became an 11-year struggle. After several failed attempts to gain freedom, Scott finally appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court, becoming one of the most notorious decisions ever issued. On its way to the Supreme Court, the Dred Scott case grew in significance as slavery was the single most explosive issue in American politics. By the time the case reached the court, it came to have enormous political implications for the entire nation. On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney read the majority opinion of the Court, which stated that slaves were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the Federal Government or the courts. [3] The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which legislated restriction of slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.
Taney, a strong advocate for slavery, addressed the question of African American citizenship and slavery in the territories during the case. In the following excerpt from the majority decision in the case, Taney states “And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property . . . than property of any other description. The only power conferred is the power coupled with the duty of guarding and protecting the owner of his rights." [5] Taney strongly believed that a slave was property and that the Constitution upheld this idea. The Court essentially supported the idea that people could be considered “property”. They followed the rule of law consistent with Due Process in that a person cannot be dispossessed of his property merely because he takes his property into a particular territory. [4] This would imply that a slave could not be considered free. They claimed their intentions were to simply follow Constitutional Law.
The case also took place during a time when slavery was considered acceptable, especially in the Southern states. In fact, the nine justices of the Supreme Court during the case had strong biases regarding slavery. Pro-slavery presidents from the South appointed seven of the nine justices present at the time of Scott’s case, while five of these justices were from slave-holding families. [2] The fact that the first seven U.S. presidents owned slaves also had a strong impact on the Supreme Court’s view of slavery. This made it substantially difficult for Scott to gain his freedom. In addition, President Buchanan who was in office during the case endorsed the court’s decision. In his address, he supported the idea of popular sovereignty, the idea that the voter in each territory could determine the spread of slavery. [6] President Buchanan’s understanding of the protection of slavery in the Constitution was consistent with that of the majority in Congress and in the Supreme Court. However, it was greatly inconsistent with the nation’s highest principles and morality.
The decision made by the Supreme Court did not have the American society’s morality in their best interest as proven by the many events that followed. While the Supreme Court and Southerners supported the Dred Scott Decision, the Northerners strongly opposed. To Northerners, the Dred Scott Decision was considered a declaration of war on all of the ideals and freedoms awarded to them by their states and territories. The furious reaction to the Dred Scott decision in the North compelled politicians in the northern state legislatures to take action, where many attempted to enact legislation that would defy the Supreme Court’s decision. [1] This decision undoubtedly held many flaws. For example, Judge Taney was to issue a ruling in a case where a slave girl committed a crime, however she was not legally considered a person but "property". Because she was not a legal citizen, he was not to punish the girl. Many argued that if he did not punish the slave girl, it would send the message that blacks are not accountable for their crimes. [6] This case displays the flaws within the Dred Scott decision, and that it was going to be impossible to fully enforce all of the laws enacted by the decision.
The Dred Scott decision moved the nation a step closer to Civil War. When the Supreme Court finally issued their decision in the case of Scott v. Sandford, the resulting effect seemed to have been increased tension between the North and South. The outcry over the Dred Scott decision caused Northerners to overwhelmingly vote Republican, in order to represent their stance against slavery. They felt they could achieve this by electing Abraham Lincoln as president because he strongly opposed slavery. Lincoln's election spurred Southern states to one by one secede from the Union, and ultimately lead the Union in the North and the Confederate states in the South to the Civil War. As a result, the Dred Scott decision that intended to protect a citizen’s property rights, actually ravaged the country during the Civil War from 1861 until 1865. [6]
The decision of Scott v. Sandford, was considered by legal scholars to be the worst ever judged by the Supreme Court. [1] It was later overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and declared all persons born in the U.S. to be citizens of the U.S. The events that followed the Dred Scott decision support the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court cannot legislate morality. The overturn of the Dred Scott Decision lead to some of the most significant times in history that has influenced the nation toward a more equal society. Throughout history, we have seen the many changes the U.S. has made based on our beliefs and morals. With that, America continues to attempt to avoid conflict with the nation’s morality and strive toward a more unified society. All in all, the Dred Scott decision had a strong impact on American politics and society. Though at the time the nation was split on whether the decision was the answer to the slavery question or a threat to American freedom, Americans are united in the belief that the Dred Scott case and its controversial decision was an important milestone in American history.
[1] “Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)” 267 U.S. 859 (1995), accessed February 12, 2014, http://www.ourdocument.gov/doc.
[2] “Dred Scott Case: The Supreme Court Decision”, accessed February 6, 2014, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia.
[3] “Dred Scott Case”, Congressional Record, accessed February 7, 2014, http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu.
[4] Ferehnbacher, Don. The Dred Scott Case: Its significance in American Law and Politics (San Francisco: Oxford University Press, 2001,), 120-132.
[5] Judgement in the U.S. Supreme Court Case Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford, March 6, 1857; National Archives Case Files 1792-1995. 267.
[6] Joshua I. Weinstein, “Dred Scott Case: Historical Document,” Constitutional Law 104 (2009): 440.
[2] “Dred Scott Case: The Supreme Court Decision”, accessed February 6, 2014, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia.
[3] “Dred Scott Case”, Congressional Record, accessed February 7, 2014, http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu.
[4] Ferehnbacher, Don. The Dred Scott Case: Its significance in American Law and Politics (San Francisco: Oxford University Press, 2001,), 120-132.
[5] Judgement in the U.S. Supreme Court Case Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford, March 6, 1857; National Archives Case Files 1792-1995. 267.
[6] Joshua I. Weinstein, “Dred Scott Case: Historical Document,” Constitutional Law 104 (2009): 440.