The relationship between public administration and law has in the recent past drawn much attention, particularly in the scholarly world. Public law is considered part of criminal, international, constitutional, and administrative law that mainly concentrates on the organization of the government, the responsibilities of government officials, the connection between sister states, and the connection between a state and its citizens (U.S. Supreme Court, 2018). It is also concerned with political issues such as rights, obligations, capacities, and authorities of different levels of government officials and government. Public administration, on the other hand, refers to a systematic and detailed application of law, constituting practices, regulations and rules, policies, and practices in action (Herda, 2011). It is focused on the overall behavior of non-elected officials.
It is important to note that the judicial review of administration is considered to be the core of administrative law. This means that an administrative decision or act can, in fact, be invalidated on various grounds if the reviewing tribunal or court has sufficient broad jurisdiction (Hardy, 2012). According to the United States of America constitutional tradition, administrative action is justifiable only if and when it obeys the rule of law. Hence, administrators must be able to connect their actions directly to grants of power in the Constitution or statutes. Public law and administration is thus significant in protecting the democratic ideals of participatory and logic, open and accountable government (Taney, Washburn & Gray, 2018).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Different cases have, in the course of American history, been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court with regards to public administration and law. This paper will focus on one such case, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 (7-2 decision) . It is not only considered the most controversial decisions ever made in the history of U.S. Supreme Court, but one that would affect the national political arena, impact the rights of liberal blacks and reinforce the institution of slavery (Herda, 2011). Today, the words ‘Dred Scott’ are discarded by many politicians when they fervently try to tie one of the recent Supreme Court decision to a historically renowned bad example. For instance, early 2010, a number of critics compared the Scott v. Sandford case to the Citizens United v FEC decisions (U.S. Supreme Court, 2018).
A summary of the Scott v. Sandford case will be provided, as well as whether or not the decision made by the Supreme Court was appropriate. Personal opinions will also be highlighted pertaining to the Supreme Court’s decision, and a conclusion given at the end.
Discussion
Summary of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 (7-2 decision) court case
This case is perhaps one of the most controversial decisions ever made in the U.S. Supreme Court’s history. This is because during that era, the Court’s majority hailed from pro-slavery states or had links to pro-slavery presidents (U.S. Supreme Court, 2018). Moreover, among constitutional experts, Dred Scott v. Sandford has been labeled as the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court. The case was also popularly characterized by Charles Evans Hughes, a later chief justice, as the Court’s great ‘self-inflicted wound’ (Herda, 2011).
The case revolves around Dred Scott, a slave owned by John Emerson who resided in Missouri. Given that Emerson served in the U.S. military, he undertook various moves where he took Scott from the slave state, to Illinois, a free state (Hardy, 2012). Eventually, they both settled in the Wisconsin Territory which was at the time considered a free territory. Here, Scott married one Harriet Robinson, who became part of the Emerson family. Emerson, on the other hand, also married and together with his wife, returned with the newly married Scotts to Missouri. Emerson passed away in 1843 (Taney, Washburn & Gray, 2018). Soon after, Dred Scott made an attempt to buy is freedom from Emerson’s widow, who refused. However, with the assistance from anti-slavery lawyers, the Scotts filed individual lawsuits for their independence in Missouri state court in St. Louis. They cited that their home in a free territory and a free state had liberated them from the bonds of slavery (U.S. Supreme Court, 2018). It was decided that only Scott’s case would be heard, and the decision following the case be applied to Harriet’s case as well.
The state court eventually declared Dred Scott free in 1850, although he was denied an access to his wages until the resolution of the impending case (Herda, 2011). At the same time, Mrs. Emerson decided to remarry. This left her brother, John Sanford to take-up her affairs. Unwilling to pay Scott, Mr. Sanford decided to file an appeal, which in turn overturned the lower court’s decision, thus the court ruling was made in favor of Mrs. Emerson’s brother. It is at this point that Scott filed yet another lawsuit in a federal circuit court alleging that John Sanford had physically ill-treated him. According to the jury, Scott could not sue in a federal court given that he was still considered a slave under Missouri law. Scott then filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1856, which later examined the case. However, unfortunately, following a clerical mistake, it was discovered that Sanford’s name was rather misspelled in court records (Hardy, 2012).
The Supreme Court’s decision
The Dred Scott decision was made two days after President James Buchanan’s election, setting the pace for his controversial term that resulted to the Civil War (Taney, Washburn & Gray, 2018). Chief Justice Roger B. Taney gave the Supreme Court’s opinion, having ruled 7-2 against Scott. According to Taney, slavers were not considered to be citizens of America and therefore had no rights to sue in federal courts. This simply meant that blacks could not be American citizens. He also argued that there are 2 main clauses in the U.S. Constitution which specifically identify the Negro race as a separate class of individuals. The clauses also indicated that these individuals were not considered part of the citizens or people of the Government then established (U.S. Supreme Court, 2018). This was evidenced under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
This first decision was reached in just a single day, rather expeditiously for a case which took a year and two months to get to trial, yet valid reasons were given. An instance is given where the judge ruled that the testimony provided was not evidence of Mrs. Emerson owning Dred Scott (Taney, Washburn & Gray, 2018). This meant that the burden of proof lay on Scott to prove his ownership so as to have a ruling on his independence. This also was an indication of how a tiny oversight by one party can influence the result of a given case. Scott’s attorney made an error in judgment, allowing the court to rule in favor of Mrs. Emerson.
Secondly, the Supreme Court also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to be illegal (Herda, 2011). It also argued that Scott’s position as a citizen of a liberal state did not automatically give him position as an American citizen. Even if Scott was considered independent under the laws of a state, the Court cited that he would still not be eligible as a U.S. citizen because he as black (Hardy, 2012). Generally, American citizens are only those who were part of the ‘political community’ following the Constitution’s establishment, together with the individuals’ heirs. This meant that slaves were not part of this particular community. Thirdly, Scott could not be identified as liberal by virtue of his residency in the Wisconsin Territory since Congress did not have authority to forbid slavery in American lands (Taney, Washburn & Gray, 2018). The Supreme Court viewed slaves as ‘property’, citing that the Fifth Amendment bans Congress from possessing property away from people without fair compensation (U.S. Supreme Court, 2018).
The Supreme Court’s decision over Scott v. Sandford was welcomed in the South and by many slavery advocates. However, there was indignation among abolitionists and in the North. Lincoln is one individual who was quite upset by the Court’s decision over the case, especially since he was an upcoming figure in the newly established Republican Party (Herda, 2011). The case became the main focus in different popular discussions between Stephen Douglas and Lincoln, in 1858. Notably, the Supreme Court’s decision made the Republican Party a national force, resulting in the partitioning of the Democratic Party in the course of the 1860 presidential elections.
Following much support from the northern states, the increasing authority of the Republicans directly resulted to fears in the South that slavery would eventually be abolished, fears which saw the beginning of the thrust for secession and the Civil War (Hardy, 2012). Scott passed away a year after he and his family gained their independence, in 1858, and when his owner sent them back to their former owners who quickly liberated them.
Review of the Supreme Court’s decision on the case
As many would agree, I also do not think that the U.S. Supreme Court made a wise decision with regards to the Scott v. Sandford case. It is apparent that CJ Roger B. Taney’s decision was the worst he ever wrote, especially since he bluntly ignored precedent, certain grants of authority in the Constitution, imposed a stiff construction on the Constitution, distorted history, and tortured meanings out of other, more vague clauses (Taney, Washburn & Gray, 2018). His reasoning on the citizenship issue was the most complicated. Although he agreed that African Americans could be considered citizens of a given state and that they may be allowed to vote, Taney cited that citizenship had nothing to do with national citizenship. Moreover, African Americans could not sue in federal courts simply because they were not considered American citizens, and therefore Scott’s case should have been disregarded for lack of influence by the district court (U.S. Supreme Court, 2018).
I disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision because Taney ruled on the grounds of Scott being black, and that the Constitution did not state such persons as U.S. citizens during its establishment. I believe that the Chief Justice stood on unstable constitutional ground. This is because if a single state considered a black individuals to be a citizen, then the Constitution required that all states accord to such individual ‘all immunities and privileges of citizens in the several states’ (Herda, 2011). Inclusively, Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution also incorporates the right to sue in federal courts (Hardy, 2012). It does not identify national citizenship but rather suggests that the judicial authority shall spread to debates between citizens of different states (Taney, Washburn & Gray, 2018).
Notably, if Scott was not an American citizen, he could not sue in a federal court, and the case would thus have been carelessly granted. However, Taney was firm to enforce a judicial clarification on the slavery debate. He held that Scott had never been liberated and that Congress had surpassed its power in the Missouri Compromise, given that it had no authority to ban or prohibit slavery in the lands (U.S. Supreme Court, 2018). The Compromise, which acted as the welcomed constitutional settlement for nearly 40 years, thus crumbled. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision was greatly influenced by politics at the time, and was manipulated against Scott from the very start. The Court itself had, prior to this case, been stacked by pro-slavery justices, with the inclusion of Taney, who did not believe African Americans to be citizens. Furthermore, the newly elected president James Buchanan practiced his own power upon the courts, convincing one Justice to decide against Scott (Herda, 2011).
Why the Supreme Court’s decision was unfair and its consequences
The main purpose of the Court’s decision was to end the dialogue over slavery for good. Less than 10 years after the decision, the discussion was settled contrary to how the Court had predicted. As part of its opinion, the Supreme Court suggested that if African Americans were to be considered citizens, what they believed undesirable and horrible outcomes would follow, such as holding political positions, possession of firearms, and traveling freely (Hardy, 2012). Yet, in an attempt to prevent these things, the Court brought about worse than they feared. A good example is that instead of a peaceful declaration, the decision brought about fears that slavery would be widespread in the country. Land worth also decreased in regions where individuals feared slavery wars would emerge, subsequently driving down the worth of railroad firms (Taney, Washburn & Gray, 2018).
The slavery dialogue increased as the Northern population together with those residing west and north of the Mason-Dixon Line lost respect for the U.S. Supreme Court, considering its decision to be barbaric (U.S. Supreme Court, 2018). Additionally, those in the North feared the possibility of the Taney-directed court ruling that states could not prohibit slavery, and bringing back slavery to every state in the nation. On the other hand, the Southern pro-slavery individuals openly exhibited their wish to spread slavery back across the North and West. However, the prolonged dialogue of secession by the South started to take shape.
Chief Justice Taney would have been on logically firm ground had he restricted himself to supporting the district court’s decision founded on the notion that position was to be determined by the states (Herda, 2011). He could also have held that Scott did not have the right to sue Sanford in a federal court on the grounds of diversity of jurisdiction, since Missouri did not consider even free African Americans to be citizens. Without much consideration, Taney upset much of the North by declaring that African Americans could never be considered American citizens. As earlier indicated, I strongly disagree with the Court’s decision because in Taney’s view, he did not see African Americans as being part of the individuals for whose safeguarding and benefit the Constitution was established. Interestingly, two justices, Benjamin R. Curtis of Massachusetts and John McLean of Ohio wrote demoralizing critiques of the Chief Justice’s opinion. They destabilized most of Taney’s historical opinions, indicating that African Americans had indeed voted in various states at the founding (Hardy, 2012).
The Scott v. Sandford case brought about passions and the Union closer to dissolving. Northern politicians and courts also rejected the case as valid. Notably, the Ohio Supreme Court held that any slave coming into the state with his/her master’s permission, even as a sojourner, became liberal. This meant that the slave could no longer be re-enslaved if returned to a slave state (Taney, Washburn & Gray, 2018). The Taney court failed to liberate America from a divisive disagreement over slavery, resulting to the passing of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution following the aftermath of the war. The former Amendment was established to abolish slavery while the latter stated that any individual born in America was a citizen (U.S. Supreme Court, 2018). These two laws led to the rights of African Americans to possess firearms, travel freely, and hold political positions of power. Interestingly, these were the very outcomes that the Taney court cited that it was trying to prohibit.
Dred Scott made an effort to win his freedom at an era when white Americans were struggling to determine the political position of slavery, and their attitudes toward black individuals, free or slave (Herda, 2011). Historians suggest that he was simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time (Hardy, 2012). The Supreme Court’s decision did not come as a surprise to the country, but made the possibility of extending slavery into the lands a contentious issue. At the time, the Court was also under great pressure to come up with a judicial answer to the slavery problem. Thus, by denying Scott his liberty, the Supreme Court had made one of its most controversial and perhaps worst decisions in history. Editorial comments from the North quickly declared the decision as cowardly, detestable, and wicked. Individual clergymen also sermonized on the woes of a decision that discriminated against an entire race (Taney, Washburn & Gray, 2018).
The animosity resulting from the Supreme Court’s decision on the Scott v. Sandford case, brought America one step closer to the Civil War. The responses of both the North and South made it clear to their adversaries that the problem of slavery could not be solved by the government, but only through the commitment and determination of each opposing side (U.S. Supreme Court, 2018). The United States was left in shocks, convulsions, and throes that only the full elimination of slavery through war could cure. Eight years following Taney’s decision on the case, the decision had a great impact on the nation. The Court’s decision would also continue playing a critical role in American politics and community long after it was assumed to have been invalid. Scott’s case remains a factor in American community and politics today because although by law African Americans were liberated citizens of America, they were still discriminated upon by the whites in the American society (Herda, 2011). Years later, American citizens acknowledged that the two mindsets could no longer coexist in the same country. Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford resulted in Americans being united in the belief that the controversial decision was to be a significant milestone in American history.
Conclusion
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford brought about increased tensions between the South and North. Even though the Missouri Compromise had already been revoked before the case, the decision still appeared to justify the Southern version of national authority, and to encourage pro-slavery Southerners to spread slavery to all regions of the country. On the other hand, angered by the Court’s decision, anti-slavery forces empowered the newly established Republican Party and assisted in fueling conflict between abolitionists and slave-owners on the border. Soon after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress passed, the states sanctioned, and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments overturned the Dred Scott decision. Some might argue that Chief Justice Taney was actually right in making the decision, since the then established U.S. Constitution did not include any clause involving African Americans. However, others see this as a discriminatory move by the Supreme Court against this particular minority group, given that Taney himself was a former slave owner. In the end, Abraham Lincoln was considered a nationally recognized Republican figure. Today, all individuals naturalized or born in America are considered to be American citizens who have the right to sue in federal courts.
References
Herda, D.J. (2011). The Dred Scott case: Slavery and citizenship . Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow Publishers.
United States Supreme Court. (2018). The Dred Scott decision: Opinions of Chief Justice Taney . Creative Media Partners, LLC.
Hardy, D.T. (2012). “Dred Scott, John San(d)ford, and the case for collusion.” Northern Kentucky Law Review , 41(1).
Taney, R.B., Washburn, I., & Gray, H. (2018). The Dred Scott case . CHIZINE PUBN.
