Dredd Scott Decision Essay, Research Paper
“ Dazes, Throes, and Paroxysms ”
“ Bondage is founded on the selfishness of adult male & # 8217 ; s nature & # 8211 ; resistance to it on his love of justness. These rules are in ageless hostility ; and when brought into hit so ferociously as slavery extension brings them, dazes and throes and paroxysms must endlessly follow. ” ( Abraham Lincoln ) [ 1 ]
America in 1857 was “ A State on the Brink ” as defined by Kenneth Stampp in his book with the same rubric. Relationships between the Northern and Southern provinces had been strained for decennaries, but during the 1840s and particularly the 1850s, the state of affairs exploded. Pro-slavery and antislavery forces clashed often and fatally in “ Bleeding Kansas, ” while the presidential election of 1856 turned ugly when southern provinces threatened sezession if a campaigner from the antislavery Republican party won. Into this charged atmosphere stepped a black slave from Missouri named Dred Scott.
During the 1850s in the United States, Southern support of bondage and Northern resistance to it collided more violently than of all time over the instance of Dred Scott, a black slave from Missouri who claimed his freedom on the footing of seven old ages of abode in a free province and a free district. When the predominately pro-slavery Supreme Court of the United States heard Scott & # 8217 ; s instance and declared that non merely was he still a slave but that the chief jurisprudence vouching that bondage would non come in the new Midwestern districts of the United States was unconstitutional, it sent America into paroxysms. The convulsion would stop merely after a long and bloody civil war fought chiefly over the issue of bondage and its extension into America & # 8217 ; s unorganised districts. The Supreme Court & # 8217 ; s opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford helped rush the reaching of the American Civil War, chiefly by farther polarising the already tense dealingss between Northerners and Southerners.
Scott had spent extended periods of clip with his proprietor, Dr. John Emerson, in Fort Armstrong, Illinois, Fort Snelling, Wisconsin Territory, Fort Jessup, Louisiana, and in St. Louis. During his travels, Scott lived for a sum of seven old ages in countries closed to slavery ; Illinois was a free province and the Missouri Compromise of 1820 had closed the Wisconsin Territory to slavery. When Scott & # 8217 ; s decade-long battle for freedom began on April 6, 1846, he lived in St. Louis and was the belongings of Emerson & # 8217 ; s married woman.
Scott declared that he was free by virtuousness of his abode at Fort Armstrong and Fort Snelling. He had strong legal backup for this declaration ; the Supreme Court of Missouri had freed many slaves who had traveled with their Masterss in free provinces. In the Missouri Supreme Court & # 8217 ; s 1836 Rachel v. Walker opinion, it decided that Rachel, a slave taken to Fort Snelling and to Prairie du Chien in Illinois, was free. By the early 1850s, nevertheless, sectional struggle had arisen once more uglier than of all time, and most Missourians did non promote the liberation of slaves. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled against Scott in 1852. He so took his instance out of the province judicial system and into the federal judicial system by conveying it to the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri.
At this point in the instance, Scott & # 8217 ; s ownership had been transferred to John Sanford which changed the instance from Scott v. Emerson to Scot v. Sandford [ different spelling due to a clerical mistake ] . The instance resumed in 1854 in the United States Circuit Court. Judge Robert W. Wells, “ a slave owner who however regarded bondage as a barrier to advancement, ” presided over the test [ 2 ] . Though Scott was deemed to be a citizen, Sanford countered that even if Scott had gained his freedom while shacking in Illinois, he had regained his slave position upon returning to Missouri. This defence proved successful and the jury decided in favour of Sanford.
The following measure for Scott was to take his instance to the highest court in the state: the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court foremost heard the instance of Scott v. Sandford in early 1856, but ordered a reargument for the following term. By this clip, Congress had renewed the argument over Congressional power to modulate bondage in the districts in visible radiation of the recent bloody struggles in Kansas. Both sides began to see the issue as a determination for the Supreme Court, and non for Congress, to do. Senator Albert G. Brown, a Democrat from Mississippi, commented on July 2, 1856:
“ My friend from Michigan [ Senator Lewis Cass ] and myself differ really widely as to what are the powers of a Territorial Legislature & # 8211 ; he believing that they can exert crowned head rights, and I believing no such thing ; he postulating that they have a right to except bondage, and I non acknowledging the proposition ; but both of us agring in the sentiment that it is a inquiry to be decided by the tribunals, and non by Congress. ”
A few hebdomads subsequently, Abraham Lincoln, a Republican from Illinois agreed:
“ I grant you that an unconstitutional act is non a jurisprudence ; but I do non inquire, and will non take your [ Democrats ‘ ] building of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States is the tribunal to make up one’s mind such inquiries, and we will subject to its determinations ; and if you do besides, there will be an terminal of the affair ” [ 3 ] .
“ When reargument before the Co
urt began on December 15, ” wrote Kenneth Stampp, “ the potentially wide political significance of the instance had become apparent, and public involvement in it had increased well ” . Indeed, “ by Christmas 1856, Dred Scott’s name was likely familiar to most Americans who followed the class of national personal businesss. “ [ 4 ]
When the Court met for the first clip since the reargument to discourse the instance on February 14, 1857, it favored a moderate determination that ruled in favour of Sanford but did non see the larger issues of Negro citizenship and the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. At first, Justice Nelson was chosen to show the bulk sentiment, but because he avoided the more controversial and of import issues Chief Justice Roger B. Taney was named as the author of the true bulk sentiment for the tribunal. It was an sentiment that would include everything under consideration in the instance, including Negro citizenship and the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise.
On March 6, 1857, the nine justnesss filed into the courtroom in the cellar of the U.S. Capitol, lead by Chief Justice Taney. Taney was about 80 old ages old, ever physically lame, and even weaker as a consequence of the attempt he had put away to compose the two-hour-long sentiment ; hence, he spoke in a low voice that Republicans deemed appropriate for such a “ black determination ” [ 5 ] against Scott. He foremost addressed the inquiry of Negro citizenship, non merely that of slaves but besides that of free inkinesss:
“ Can a Negro, whose ascendants were imported into this state, and sold as slaves, go a member of the political community formed and brought into being by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and unsusceptibilities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen? ” [ 6 ]
One of the privileges reserved for citizens by the Constitution, argued Taney, was the “ privilege of actioning in a tribunal of the United States in the instances specified by the Constitution. “ [ 7 ] Taney & # 8217 ; s sentiment stated that Negroes, even free Blacks, were non citizens of the United States, and that hence Scott, as a Negro, did non even have the privilege of being able to action in a federal tribunal. Taney so turned to the inquiry of the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. The districts acquired from France in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, Taney stated, were dependent upon the national authorities, and the authorities could non move outside its model as set Forth in the Constitution. Congress, for illustration, could non deny the citizens of the new district freedom of address. Similarly, Congress could non strip the citizens of the district of “ life, autonomy, or belongings without due procedure of jurisprudence, ” harmonizing to the Fifth Amendment. Taney continued:
“ And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his autonomy or belongings, simply because he came himself or brought his belongings into a peculiar district of the United States, and who had committed no discourtesy against the Torahs, could barely be dignified with the name of due procedure of jurisprudence. ” [ 8 ]
Taney besides stated that “ the position of slaves who had been taken to liberate States or districts and who had afterwards returned depended on the jurisprudence of the State where they resided when they brought suit. ” Scott had brought suit in Missouri and therefore he was still a slave because Missouri was a slave province. Taney ruled that the instance be dismissed for deficiency of legal power and sent back to the lower tribunal with instructions for that tribunal to disregard the instance for the same ground, hence continuing the Missouri Supreme Court & # 8217 ; s opinion in favour of Sanford.
Four old ages after Chief Justice Taney read his ill-famed Scott v. Sandford determination, parts of the proslavery half of the Union had seceded and the state was engaged in civil war. Because of the passions it aroused on both sides, Taney & # 8217 ; s determination surely accelerated the start of this struggle. Even in 1865, as the long and bloody war drew to a stopping point with the Northern, antislavery side on top, a mere reference of the determination struck a nervus in the Northern Congress.
Clearly Scott v. Sandford was non an easy disregarded instance. That it still raised such strong emotions good into the Civil War shows that it helped convey on the war by indurating the places of each side to the point where both were willing to contend over the issue of bondage. The North realized that if it did non move fleetly, the Southern provinces might take the case in point of the Scott instance as a justification for spread outing bondage into new districts and free provinces likewise. The South recognized the menace of the Republican party and knew that the party had gained a considerable sum of support as a consequence of the Northern paranoia in the wake of the determination. In the old ages following the instance, Americans realized that these two mentalities, both quick to support their side, both distrustful of the other side, could non coexist in the same state. The state realized, in Abraham Lincoln & # 8217 ; s words, that “ house divided against itself can non stand. & # 8217 ; . . . This authorities can non digest, for good half slave and half free ” [ 9 ] . Scott & # 8217 ; s instance left America in “ dazes and throes and paroxysms ” that merely the complete obliteration of bondage through war could bring around.
