Dred Scott decision Flashcards
(10 cards)
Dred Scott and the significance
Dred-Scott was previously a slave of John Emerson, Emerson had taken him from Missouri to posts in Illionois and at Fort Smelling (Northern part of the Louisianna purchase territory). Once Emerson dies, Scotts white friends convinced him to sue for his freedom on the grounds that he had resided in a free state and free territory for a prolonged period. He did this and after 3 years, in 1846, his case was brought to Missouri courts.
Dred Scott was not famous for something he did, but the principle of the cause. His case was a ‘test case’, which could potentialy resolve crucial constitutional issues with regard to the legal position of slavery.
Ratio of Judges in the supream court
The Supreme Court had a Southern Majority with Southern Judges outnumbering their Northern counterparts by 5 to 3.
question 1 - was scott a citizen with the rights to sue in federal court?
Question
“Was Scott a citizen with the right to sue in Federal Courts?”
Majority
Scott was not a free citizen of the USA; he had not been part of “the sovereign people” who made the constitution. Thus, he was not a part of “all men” who were deemed equal under the Declaration of Independence.
Minority
The Constitution did not deny citizenship to black people, meaning that he had the right to sue federal courts.
question 2 - was he free because he resided in a free country?
question
“Was Scott free as a result of having lived in Wisconsin Territory, where slavery had been outlawed by the Missouri Compromise?”
minority
Scotts stay in Illinois and Fort Snelling had no impact on his status when he returned to Missouri as when he was in Missouri his status was determined under their laws.
majority
Scott was a free man by virtue as he had resided in a free territory for a prolonged period of time.
question 3 - was Fort Snelling a free territory?
question
“Was Fort Snelling actually a free territory? Did Congress actually have the right to ban slavery North of 36’30?”
majority
Scotts stay in free territory had no impact to his status because the 1820 Missouri Compromise banning slavery in territories North of latitude 36 30 was illegal.
minority
The Missouri Compromise was constitutional and valid.
what was the decision?
By March 1857 the Supreme Court was ready to make a decision.
The five Southern Justices wanted to rule against Congresses right to ban slavery. This included Roger B Taney (a Southerner who was unlikely to go against the institution of slavery).
On 6th March 1857 the U.S Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott, an enslaved person, was not a citizen and therefore could not sue in federal court, and that slavery was legal in all U.S territories. Effectively overturned the Missouri Compromise.
Northern reaction
Northerners were unhappy with the majority decision because they saw it as a tactical move of the South to expand slavery into the free states. They also believed that the decision was an attempt to ban the Republican Party as they were fully committed to banning slavery from territories.
The Dred-Scott decision was seen as evidence of the “slave power conspiracy” at work because Taney had been caught whispering with Buchanan (Democrat President, Pro-slavery) on the day of his inauguration, two days before the Supreme Court’s decision. Seward and Lincoln used this as evidence of the conspiracy. Republicans claim that this proved that Buchanan had known what the Supreme Court’s decision was going to be when he asked Americans to accept it.
Dred-Scott decision managed to divide democratic ranks because although Northerners initially accepted the decision, they began to realise that the decision didn’t make any direct reference to popular sovereignty, showing that the principle of the Dred-Scott decision was not that Congress didn’t have the power to exclude slavery from a territory, but that slave property could not be excluded from a territory.
past papers
Supreme Court decision delivered on 6th March 1857 by Chief Justice Roger Taney judging that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories, thus ruling the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional
Heightened the sectional debate on slavery and the balance between free and slave states.
The Supreme Court decision effectively ended the abolitionist campaign to prevent the extension of slavery into the territories.
Buchanan’s inaugural speech two days before the decision called for calm on the slavery issue and for the nation to accept the Supreme Court decision was further evidence of the slave power at work
the future of slavery was a critical issue in 1857 and its future in the territories even more paramount, for example, Kansas, Lecompton decision, fugitive slave law. Taney’s decision intensified feelings surrounding the future of slavery in the territories
Hugh Tullochs view
Hugh Tulloch: Takes the view that the 1857 decision merely re-affirmed the view that slaves were mere property.
James McPhersons view
James McPherson: Takes the view that the decision did not remove issue of slavery in territories but made it a political issue with Republicans seeing Scott as a free man.
