Dred Scott and the Dangers of a Political Court, Research Paper Example

Introduction

While a large number of court cases have lasting significance in revealing how race was addressed by the justice system over the years, it is arguable that no decision has the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case of1857.  This is chiefly due to the fact that the decision, denying the former slave Scott – and all African Americans – the status of American citizenship has lived on as perhaps the most outrageously unethical and unconstitutional ruling ever made by the highest court in the land.  Equally importantly, and as the following will explore, the case powerfully represents how race, as with other crucial elements of the society, is so often addressed by the justice system in ways reflecting the unique circumstances of the era and the society at the time.  In this landmark decision, the USSC decision encompasses the racial ideology dominant of the mid-19^th century, the subsequent lack of legal protections for blacks, the slavery issues soon to lead to war, and how a grossly incorrect ruling sets the stage for reactions moving the nation in a more just direction.

Elements of the Issues

It is easy to reflect on Dred Scott and conclude only that the USSC acted defying in a manner defying its purpose, as it is difficult to conceive of so high a court virtually ruling that African Americans are inherently unfit to be citizens.  This very extremity, however, indicates how powerful are societal influences on the justice system itself.  It is agreeable to think of that systems as apart from shifting ideologies and cultural biases; the court exists yo uphold the law, after all, and all individuals are equal within the defining foundation of the law, the Constitution.  Unfortunately, equality has always been an imperfect process in the U.S., as the Amendments to the Constitution clearly demonstrate.  Put another way, ethics do not establish law, but rather evolve through interaction with the law itself, and this then enables a ruling as seemingly incomprehensible as Dred Scott v. Sandford.

The 1857 ruling was not a criminal matter, yet the Dred Scott case emphatically goes to the criminal justice system within the larger, in that the Court’s decision would identify an African American’s right to sue at a federal level, which in turn generates vast implications for criminality of itself (Roth, 2010, p. 135). If a man or woman is not a citizen, plainly, they are then far more subject to being seen as violating the law, and in the most ordinary actions.  Scott was suing for his right to be free in New York, a non-slavery state, but the Court focused only on the identity of the African American as unfit to make such a claim.  Chief Justice Roger Taney then profoundly reiterated the racial doctrine of the era when, in explaining the decision, he asserted that blacks were an “inferior class of beings” necessarily lacking basic rights.  Interestingly, this view was presented as staunchly constitutional, in that this denial of citizenship status to African Americans would all the more emphasize the rights “naturally” belonging by law to whites (Konig, Finkelman, & Bracey, 2010,  p. 141).  That this was motivated to placate the South in no way lessened the essential criminalizing of blacks who pursued freedom, and all the more emphasizes how a pervasive racial bias of the society as a whole was permitted to actually dictate law.

Repercussions notwithstanding the Dred Scott ruling had an immediate and immense impact on all African Americans, simply because the denial of citizenship status inevitably translated to the lack of the many legal protections enjoyed by citizens: “If blacks could not become citizens, they could not hold any civil rights” (Rutherglen, 2013, p. 29). Civil rights encompass untold protections, from the ability to seek justice to matters ranging from employment and housing opportunities at the most basic level.  Justice Taney, in fact, went further in defining the lack of black national identity by affirming that Congress had no power to naturalize any African American as a citizen (Rutherglen, p. 29).  Citizenship rights are so many and varied, and so taken for granted by Americans, it is easy to lose sight of how the denial of them radically translates to a form of criminalizing, in that behaviors undertaken by those denied then violate the law.  This was the stunning loss of legal protection for blacks generated by the infamous Scott decision.

Not unexpectedly, so radical, and so radically unethical, a ruling could not survive long, and ironically due to the very circumstances prompting it as an expedient measure in reducing the conflict growing within the nation. It is difficult to fathom how the Court could have believed that this decision could endure in the face of a national, ideological schism rending the U.S. with increasing force.  It is now acknowledged that intense pressure from the Buchanan administration swayed the Court in its decision, which was intended to ease the national tensions over slavery and appease the interests of the Southern states.  At the time, President Buchanan – as did other factions in the North – held to the hope that affirming the ideology behind slavery would avert disaster and keep the nation unified.  What actually occurred was a monumental backlash; the Court was perceived as weak and unjust by the North, which was then all the more militantly determined to end slavery (Roth, p. 136).  The impacts of the Scott case were, in no uncertain terms, vast, in that it not only denied constitutional rights to blacks, but also denied the power of Congress to arbitrate on slavery issues and the interests of a Republican North determined to stem the spread of slavery in the expanding territories (Greenberg, 2010,  p. 318).  If the ruling did not actually cause the Civil War, it is nonetheless arguable that Dred Scott lit a fuse on a catastrophic conflict.

Lastly, the Scott ruling exists as something of a dramatic template for how a wholly invalid decision eventually promotes a focus on actual justice.  Certainly, the Civil War went a long way in refuting the Scott ruling and in ending the gross injustice of slavery, which in turn affirmed the identities of African Americans as free and equal citizens under the law.  It is in fact interesting that the Scott ruling, initially prompted by one man’s seeking justice in the courts and refused that justice, triggered long decades of African Americans still first turning to the courts to attain the rights.  A legacy of Scott was a negation of hope, but for many the justice system still represented the best avenue by which justice could be had because it inevitably drew attention to the basics of the Constitution. In the first half of the 20^th century, in fact, increasing numbers of African American attorneys made their voices heard in the courts (Norgren, Nanda, 2006, p. 50).

As the Scott ruling so dramatically impeded justice, it nonetheless then inspired a commitment to true justice in terms of an increased focus of African Americans on the courts themselves.

Conclusion

Race has consistently played a crucial role within the entire justice system, as the law has evolved to alter the actual legal identity of African Americans. This inevitably reflects criminal justice when, as in the Dred Scott decision, blacks were denied citizen status and consequently classified as criminal if they acted in ways according with civil rights.  In simple terms, the sheer impact of Dred Scott cannot be overstated as perhaps the most important case of a racial nature ever addressed by the USSC, and addressed in a shockingly unconstitutional fashion.  Ultimately, Dred Scott v. Sandford encompasses the racist ideology of the mid-19^th century, the subsequent lack of legal protections for blacks, the slavery issues soon to lead to Civil War, and how a grossly unjust ruling sets the stage for reactions moving the nation in a more just direction.

References

Greenberg, E. (2010).  Dred Scott and the Dangers of a Political Court. Lanham: Lexington Books.

Konig, T. K., Finkelman, P., & Bracey, C. A. (2010).  The Dred Scott Case: Historical    and Contemporary Perspectives on Race and Law.  Athens: Ohio University Press.

Norgren, J., & Nanda, S.  (2006).  American Cultural Pluralism and Law.  Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Roth, M. (2010).  Crime and Punishment: A History of the Criminal Justice System. Belmont: Cengage Learning.

Rutherglen, G.  (2013).  Civil Rights in the Shadow of Slavery: The Constitution, Common Law, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.  New York: Oxford University Press.