The Dred Scott Case, Article Review Example

The article ‘The Dred Scott Case’ is devoted to a case that was decided several times in different courts and in the long run the suitor lost his case.

Historically, it was in 1836 that a new wave of antislavery petitions and issues occurred. Dred Scott himself was a slave; his history began from 1832, when he was sold to John Emerson. His master was a querulous man and moved from one state to another. With his master, Dred Scott moved from Missouri to Illinois, then to Minnesota, Louisiana, Texas, and in the end to St. Louis.

After death of his master, Dred Scott sued the widow of his master as he wanted freedom, and she wanted him and his family to be her slaves. He insisted that he lived in Illinois for two years and it emancipated him. Though judicial precedent was on his side the case was decided against him. A new trial occurred in Missouri Supreme Court. Then Scott won but Mrs. Emerson carried an appeal to the state supreme court and it was decided that in Missouri he remained a slave. After this decision Scott suited Mrs. Emerson brother who became her agent in United States circuit court for Missouri. A famous ‘Dred Scott v. Sandford’ (misspelled surname in official records) case took place in 1854. This case raised an issue of the emancipating slaves when they live on the free soil. Scott claimed that he was a citizen of Missouri in order to maintain the suit, and this fact was argued by opposing counsel. After clarifying the points concerning citizenship (a term citizen that was not defined clearly anywhere) the case was decided in Sanford favor. The case was processed in writ of error to United States Supreme Court. Chief justice Roger B. Taney was a defender of Southern ideas and denied Negro’s and slave’s rights. In February, 1856, the Court heard arguments of ‘Scott v. Sandford’ case. And, notably, for the first time in the history the law which proved that Dred Scott was free was stated unconstitutional. This declaration caused further resonance. Issues about territorial legislature were raised. Though Dred Scott lost the battle for freedom that lasted eleven years, later he was emancipated, and shortly after his emancipation he died.

The main idea of the article is the importance and difference of the ‘Scott v. Sandford’ from other cases. Though in the end of the article general legal effect of the decision was reported to be slight, and the judicial precedent unimportant, the case was remarkable because it ruled the major federal law to be unconstitutional.

The decision making process that took place in United States Supreme Court also was emphasized. Seven of nine justices agreed that Scott’s emancipation was unlawful, though only one of nine judges expressed his total agreement with the decision. Chief justice declared the decision: blacks were excluded from citizenship and Congress was denied to prohibit slavery in the territories. First part of the statement was not fully supported by all judges, but second part was later treated as ‘obiter dictum’. Chief justice’s speech reflected the Supreme Court opinion, but it was largely discussed. Taney insisting on the facts that Scott could not be a citizen because he was a Negro and because he was a slave was rather notable. But his judgment about Congress that had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories was much more discussed as it gave Republicans reason to treat Court’s ruling of the territories as without legal effect.

In the whole, the Taney’s dictum was underlined in this article. Chief justice himself devoted vast majority of his opinion to Negro Citizenship and territorial question, and tiny minority to the question of free soil. Taney ignored the distinction between free Negroes and slaves and ‘grouped them into one degraded class of beings’. His opinion about slaves made him notorious.

Taney also stated that a clause in the Constitution that was previously thought to be the base of the Congress power is irrelevant. In his opinion, it only dealt with issues concerning disposal of public lands within original boundaries of United States. He said that Constitution did not warranty the antislavery provision of the Missouri Compromise, though this part of phrasing did not clarify his reasoning. He undermined the platform of Republicans, and then he began to attack the Democrats platform and their idea of popular sovereignty. He proclaimed that local governments had no authority to prohibit slavery in their territories as local governments are ruled by Congress. The reaction was vehement; Republicans and Democrats attacked the decision and mentioned it as a wicked and atrocious.

Author’s opinion is that the case of Scott v. Sandford was of slight significance as a judicial case. But it was important in historical context for political authorities, for slavery controversy, for South and North relations.

In my opinion, the problem that was pinpointed in the article is personification of the power. Really, if a chief judge had been against slavery, if among judges there were majority of Northern representatives, a case would have been decided in Dred Scotts’ favor.

Everything that was said about Justice Taney was said as though to emphasize the influence of his own opinion on the Court’s decision. It was not that obvious because he spoke the Court’s opinion, but his proslavery personal dictum was nearly apparent. I think that when a legislature was not developed and territories were forming, when the federal Constitution did not meet the requirements of the changing country, unbiased (to a possible degree) justices should have represented the Supreme Court. Personal impact was too obvious; a court decision that concerned lives of four enslaved people was made up as a result of personal convictions of justices. In general, this article reflects a condition of legislature system when its understanding depended greatly on people that read the laws. A certain case exemplifies a judicial precedent and political event simultaneously.