The Dred Scott Decision Essay, Research Paper

The Dred Scott Decision There have been several instances in the history of the Supreme Court that have had a powerful impact on both the highest tribunal of the land and the history of the United States. The Dred Scott determination can decidedly be included in this class of monumental instances that changed the class of American history. Until this determination, the Supreme Court had a unflawed repute. Its prestigiousness and credibleness were beyond reproach. This high respect for the Supreme Court made people on both sides of the slavery issue bend to it in the hope that what could non be resolved in the political universe could be solved in the legal universe by the highest tribunal of the land. But this was truly anticipating excessively much of judicial power. The major mistake associated with this instance was the ill-conceived belief that a bally political job, bondage, could go manageable by naming it a legal job and passing it over to the tribunals to decide. In the Dred Scott instance the determination was based on & # 8220 ; expedience non principle. & # 8221 ; The large job was seeking to utilize judicial power to settle a major political job. Although the Dred Scott determination may hold been the consequence of a test, in world it was a instance of the tribunal combating with the complex issue of bondage, particularly in the districts, in the mid l800 & # 8217 ; s. In order to state the narrative of a slave you have to state the narrative of his maestro. The slave does non hold an individuality or history of his ain. In Virginia, Peter Blow and his household had many slaves. Among these slaves was a immature adult male named Sam, or as we know him today, Dred Scott. Peter Blow decided to travel his estate to Alabama and so to the booming port metropolis of St. Louis. During these old ages, Dred married and had a kid. After the decease of the Blows, Dred was sold to Dr. Emerson, an ground forces sawbones. He and Scott traveled through Illinois and Minnesota. When Dr. Emerson died, Dred Scott was sent back to St. Louis to Mrs. Emerson. This was when Scott argued that under the footings of the Missouri Compromise, the fact that he and Dr. Emerson lived in Illinois and Minnesota made him a free adult male. The Missouri Compromise did non let bondage in whatever district that remained from the Louisiana Purchase North of a specific line, 360 30 of north latitude. At this clip the issue of bondage was a major concern. The Mexican War provided the United States with a batch of new district, and the inquiry of the hereafter of bondage in the districts was on the head of everyone. The people of the North who were against bondage wanted Congress to forbid bondage in the districts. John C. Calhoun, the spokesman for the South, said that Congress did non hold the right to forbid bondage in the districts. The Southern effort to widen the line of the Missouri Compromise failed, so their lone hope was Calhoun & # 8217 ; s constitutional unfavorable judgment of Congress & # 8217 ; effort to forbid bondage in the districts. This was why they plunged themselves wholly behind Calhoun & # 8217 ; s thoughts. Calhoun argued that the districts were & # 8220 ; the common belongings of the provinces of this Union. They are called the & # 8217 ; districts of the United States, and what are the United States, but the States united? Sir, these districts are the belongings of the States united ; held jointly for their common use. & # 8221 ; This statement attractively illustrates how utmost the Southern position of province sovereignty was. It was the Southern belief that the provinces should hold the right to declare bondage in their provinces and it is beyond congressional power to forbid bondage. Southerners believed that their very existence depended on an equal sum of slave and free provinces. They realized that if Congress prohibited bondage in the districts there would be no more equality of slave provinces and free provinces. The Northern position was based upon the Wilmot Proviso which expressed the position that Congress had non merely the right but besides the duty to forbid bondage. The Northern position was besides based upon the really fundamental law itself which said that Congress has the power to & # 8220 ; do all needed Rules and Regulations esteeming the Territory & # 8230 ; belonging to the United States. & # 8221 ; Calhoun presented his thoughts to Congress, stating them that the districts belong to the provinces and since Congress is simply theagent of the provinces, it has no right to forbid bondage. It all came down to whether or non you believe that province & # 8217 ; s rights are moreimportant than federal rights or frailty versa. Many arguments, including the Lincoln-Douglas Debate, focused on this hot issue. With much argument, Congress was hopelessly deadlocked. The Senate would non O.K. any proviso or jurisprudence which denied the right of Congress to forbid bondage in the districts. The House did non O.K. any bundle which included the right of Congress to forbid bondage in the districts. The state of affairs was wholly inflexible. It appeared as though nil would alter the state of affairs in Congress. It was decided by the South and agreed upon by the North that there was but one solution to the muss that the Union had gotten itself into: acquiring the bench involved. At that clip the Supreme Court seemed to be incapable of making anything incorrect. With the supreme leading ability of John Marshall and now Roger Taney, all jobs seemed to be solved, and solved right. Southerners saw that nil was go oning to alter the fact that Congress could forbid bondage in the districts. After a piece everyone seemed to experience that the judicial system was their lone hope for a solution. Even the loud Senator from Illinois, by the name of Abraham Lincoln said: & # 8220 ; The Supreme Court of the United States is the tribunal to make up one’s mind such inquiries and we will subject to its decision. & # 8221 ; So there it is. It is all up to the tribunals, through the tests of a few instances, to make up one’s mind upon the complex and to a great extent debated issue of bondage. This is why the instance of Dred Scott played such an of import function in American history. In the first test in l846, the St. Louis Circuit Court denied Dred & # 8217 ; s supplication for freedom. However, his attorney set up a retrial in 1850. Scott claimed freedom because of his stay in Minnesota and Illinois. After Dr. Emerson died, Scott became

the belongings of Mrs. Emerson. When she remarried she gave Dred to her brother, Sanford, who regarded Dred as his belongings. Sanford said that even though Dred Scott had been in districts that prohibited bondage, his voluntary return to St. Louis, a slave bearing province, made him a slave one time once more. In the retrial Scott prevailed, but two old ages subsequently, in l852, Scott lost in the Missouri Supreme Court. At this point the instance began to pull a batch of public attending.

The instance became a Federal instance when Scott claimed that he was a citizen of Missouri and that Sanford, a citizen of New York, had assaulted him. Sanford replied with a supplication of suspension on the evidences that Dred Scott was non a citizen of Missouri because his ascendants came to the United States as slaves. Since Dred is non a citizen, he can non register a claim in a federal tribunal. The supplication of suspension was denied because the justice claimed that Scott was a citizen. After the test the justice in secret informed the jury to vote against Scott ; this is what the jury did. Dred Scott & # 8217 ; s attorneies filed a Writ of Error to the United States Supreme Court. With a really heavy docket, the Supreme Court planned to hear the Dred Scott vs. Sanford instance two old ages subsequently, in the twelvemonth of l856. Legal experts joined both sides of the instance as the attending of the full state became focused on this test. The fact that Sanford had entered a supplication of suspension claiming that inkinesss were non citizens, gave the full instance an added dimension of importance. Not merely was it involved with the critical inquiry of Congress right to forbid bondage in the districts, it called into inquiry the really right of Negroes to be citizens. What is the usage of Congress forbiding bondage in the districts if those freed from bondage could non go citizens? The whole state realized that this was the instance they had all been waiting for. This was the instance that would do the ultimate determination. It would be really difficult for Dred Scott to win this instance. The tribunal was Southern and pro bondage. There were nine justnesss. Taney, the Chief Justice, and four others were from the South. Two of the Northern Judgess were for province rights and one was pro bondage. Merely one justice was against bondage. After hearing the instance, the Judgess wanted to govern in favour of Sanford. This is an illustration of utilizing the jurisprudence to acquire the consequences that you want. The Judgess wanted to utilize the jurisprudence to advance the position of the United States that they considered most desirable. They could non make up one’s mind on what legal principle their determination should be based. Some Judgess wanted to overrule Scott & # 8217 ; s position as a citizen. Justice Nelson said that since this instance was so controversial, and the election of l856 was so controversial, they should wait until after the election to hear new statements. This petition was granted. More statements were heard and the Judgess decided upon a finding of fact. The determination, which Justice Taney presented, had three chief points: Negroes, even those who were non slaves, could non be citizens of the United States, harmonizing to the significance of the Constitution. Scott & # 8217 ; s claim that he had become a free adult male because he lived in a district from which bondage had been prohibited as a consequence of the Missouri Compromise, was non valid. This was because the Missouri Compromise which excluded bondage went beyond the constitutional power of Congress. Finally, Scott was non free because he had lived in Illinois. Once he returned to Missouri he was obligated to obey the Torahs of Missouri and was bound by the place he held in that province. In l86l-1862, two really of import things happened: Abraham Lincoln was elected president and Congress prohibited bondage in the districts without judicial restraint. These two things helped the North addition power. Peoples were really disquieted with the Dred Scott opinion, even after his decease. Other instances received similar finding of facts and were non judged by the virtues of the single instances, but by the issue of bondage. Peoples were non acquiring just tests even though they were insured just tests by the Constitution of the United States of America. Calhoun continued to contend and remained a guardian of bondage. He based his place on the right of provinces to & # 8220 ; modulate their ain domestic institutions. & # 8221 ; There was still much argument and the issue was nowhere near to being solved. The hope of holding it solved by the Supreme Court proved to be an semblance. The temper of the state was angry. Compromise was out of the inquiry. The Dred Scott instance made the common common people aware of bondage and its horrors. It added much more depth to the freshly formed Free Soil and Republican Parties. But it was besides used as a arm for the Democrats. Every clip the issue of judiciary engagement came up, they merely pointed to the Dred Scott instance. Republicans said it was merely cogent evidence of Southern unfairness, and a good ground to contend against them. The South had extremists who stuck to their belief in their absolute sovereignty. This farther stray and separated the South from the remainder of the state. The Dred Scott instance bears straight on the Civil War. It non merely strengthened the Republican Party but it besides angered them to the point that they were ready to contend in a war. There was a war and the North prevailed. This war marked the terminal of bondage, but was one of the most traumatic events in the history of the United States. The Dred Scott determination was a major factor in spliting the state beyond fix. It was the traveling force for the Civil War that followed it. The Supreme Court & # 8217 ; s consideration of the instance represented the last opportunity for a peaceful and legal solution to the issue of bondage. All anterior political solutions proposed by Congress proved futile. Having exhausted both political and legal agencies for a solution, the fiends took over and the gore of war became inevitable. & # 8212 ; Bibliography Fehrenbacher, Don E. The Dred Scott Case, Its Significance in American Law and Politics New York: Oxford University Press, l978. Hopkins, Vincent C. Dred Scott & # 8217 ; s Case New York: Atheneum, l967. Kutler, Stanley, I. The Dred Scott Decision, Law or Politics? Boston: Houghton Mifflin, l967. Schwartz, Bernard. A History of the Supreme Court New York: Oxford University Press, l993.