Introduction
On 6 March 1857, the eleven-year legal struggle Dred Scott, a slave who resided in a slave-free state, finally ended. The United States Supreme Court rendered its decision and ruled that Dred Scott was still a slave irrespective of residing a slave-free territory (Herda, 2010). In addition, the Court raised more controversy and resulted in more confusion. It declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and that blacks whether enslaved or free could never be citizens of the United States. Moreover, the court ruled that the Congress had no powers to decide the fate of the slaves in the territories. The expectations were significantly high in this case. It was expected to not only end the issue of slavery once and for but also mitigate the growing sectional crisis in the country. On the contrary, it increased the tension in the nation between the South and the North (Herda, 2010). The impact of the decision varied by political party and region the northerners and the Republicans strongly criticized it while the southerners and Democrats praised it. The intense impact of this decision not only affected the late 1850s politics but also was one of the precipitates that led to a political breakdown in America, the southern secession as well as Civil War.
Background of the Case
As a result of his service to the United States, John Emerson of Missouri in 1834 took Dred Scott, his slave, from Missouri, which was a slave state to Illinois a free state and finally to Wisconsin Territory which was a free territory. During this time, Dred Scott married Harriet Robinson making her a member of Emerson’s household. After marrying in 1838, Emerson and his wife moved back to Emerson in the early 1840s with the Scotts. Emerson later died in 1843 in Emerson. Scott’s efforts to purchase freedom from Emerson’s widow hit a dead end after she refused the sale. With the help of antislavery lawyers, Harriet and Scott filled personal lawsuits for their freedom St. Louis Missouri state court in 1846. They claimed that their residences in both a Free State and territory had granted them their freedom from slavery (Konig, Finkelman, & Bracey, 2010). The court decided to proceed with Dred’s cases with its outcome applying to Harriet’s case as well. The case took over ten years to solve. The state court declared Scott free in 1850 but the Missouri Supreme Court overturned this decision in 1852 and consequently invalidated the Once free, always free” doctrine. Emerson Widow later left Missouri and left her husband’s estate to his brother John F.A. Sanford. Scott’s lawyers were forced to open a case against Sanford in U.S. district court since he was not a subject to suit in Missouri. The Court favored Sanford, and the case eventually came to the Supreme Court. The Court rendered its decision in March 1857, merely two weeks to President James Buchanan’s inauguration. By a majority vote, the Court stated that because of his race, Scott could never be a citizen of the US and therefore he had no right to sue under the Constitution. The Court also invalidated the 1820 Missouri Compromise (Allen, 2010).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Impact of Dred Scott Decision on the United States
Impact in the Northern States
The Northerners were the first to react publically to the Supreme Court’s decision. To them, this decision amounted to a declaration of war on the entire ideals and freedoms granted to them by their territories and states, which vehemently opposed the institution of slavery. They opposed the decision because it was a product of a conspiracy of slave power that Supreme Court favored. The other members of the conspiracy according to the Northerners were prominent Democratic Politicians and President Buchanan (Herda, 2010). The Northern States infuriated by the slave power conspiracy declared that the decision would not stop their fight for freedom (Konig, Finkelman, & Bracey, 2010). To them, the remedy only lied on the Union, action and the ballot box. They started campaigns for a Republican President in 1860 election who would establish freedom for everyone in the United States. The Northerners also denounced the politics that accompanied the Dred Scott decision particularly the invalidation of the Missouri Compromise. They were infuriated by the decision of the court to declare the Congress powerless over slavery in Territories, which was irrelevant to Scott’s claim for freedom. The Northerners also denounced the Court’s decision for its denial of the right to citizenship to African-Americans and closing the national justice law to African-Americans by terming them as outlaws.
Impact in the Southern States
Unlike the Northerners, the Southerners welcomed the Supreme Court decision in Scott v. Sanford case. They regarded it as a vindication of the slavery practices as well as a settlement of the question of slavery. Since the institution of slavery was one of the many causes of the tension between the Southerners and the Northerners, the Southern states hoped the Supreme Court decision of the question of slavery would put an end to the sectional tension. The Southerners’ acceptance of the decision had its negative side. There was a possibility of the decision being overturned by a future government the same way Andrew Jackson’s presidency reversed the Supreme Court that had declared the National Banks to be constitutional (Herda, 2010). The decision also empowered the ‘Black Republican Party’ to do everything possible to secure presidential victory in the 1860 election. Hence, the Southern had to get ready for fears battle if they were to secure the rights granted to them by the Supreme Court’s decision.
Impact in the West
The decision raised mixed reactions in the West. Some states such as California denounced the decision citing its revalidation of slavery in the free territories. California distanced itself from the Court Decision and termed its participation in the case as of evil consequences. The Supreme Court of California had in 1852 ruled against Perkins and Jones who were slaves and been recaptured and returned to their master in Mississippi. The court upheld their masters right to own them despite having resided in a free state. Reverdy Johnson, Sanford’s lawyers used this decision in his argument of protecting slave owners rights over slaves even in states that did not tolerate or approve of the slavery institution. As a result, the 1852 California Court decision had a profound effect on the outcome of Dred Scott’s case (Allen, 2010). Therefore, the California Court decision that upheld the ownership right of slave owners to slaves who had sojourned to free territories and states was largely blamed for the outcome of the Scott v. Sanford case. The decision also raised new questions about what nature was Oregon going to join the Union. There were questions as to whether Oregon was going to join the Union as a slave or Free State given its substantial number of black slaves. Most of them come from the South, but their slave masters refused to set them free on arrival to Oregon, which was a free state.
Impact in the State Legislature
The Northern furious reaction to the Dred Scott decisions prompted politicians in the northern legislature to take action. The legislatures of Ohio, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania attempted to pass legislation that would defy the Court’s Decision (VanderVelde, 2011). Pennsylvania State among others introduced a resolution that condemned the decision. The Ohio state tabled a bill that would prohibit slaveholding and kidnapping in addition to tabling a resolution calling for equal representation in the Supreme Court tribunal by having representatives from Free states. Like Ohio, New York saw the decision as an attack on its Sovereignty and claimed that no power would establish slavery in it. The New Hampshire state went a step further and tabled a resolution that called for equal rights to people of all colors. The Massachusetts House approved a bill that instructed their Representatives and Senators in the United States Congress to move an amendment to the US Constitution to appoint the Supreme Court judges for a fixed term (Ewing, 2013). They sought equal representation of the Northerners and Southerners in the Supreme Court tribunal for they believed the equal balance would ensure fair representation. The Southern States, in sharp contrast to the Northern states, adopted and welcomed the decision.
Legal Application of Dred Scot Decision
The Dred Scott decision resulted in a change in federal policy, and hence it had numerous significant legal effects as well as applications. The most important legal effect was in reference to the Court’s ruling that declared blacks, whether enslaved or free could never be United States citizens. Some aspects of Dred Scott’s were used in civil and criminal cases and had other legal application in the South and the North (Allen, 2010). In the North, some lawyers used the law to their advantage. For instance, attorney J.A. Thompson used the decision to fight the indictment of four descendants of Africans for stealing poultry in Chicago’s Recorder Court. He argued based on the Dred Scott’s decision; the four were merely merchandise and not persons as the indictment alleged.
In the South, lawyers as well utilized this decision to defend their clients. In the case of United States vs. The Slave girly Amy in which Amy was indicted for stealing mail, the first defense argued that Amy who was a slave was not legally a person since slaves could not be deprived of their liberty or fined. Secondly, the Constitution required one to be tried by their peer, and since slaves could not form a jury, Amy was not legally a person (VanderVelde, 2011). Using the Dred Scott’s decision, the defense argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction since black Americans could not sue or be sued civilly. Moreover, since the slaves had no rights, they could not be held responsible for their actions. Finally, the defense attorney argued that since Amy was a property, imprisoning her would amount to violate a private property right as stipulated in the Constitution. Eventually, Judge Taney who heard this case and the Dred Scott’s case agreed with the defense lawyers, but he proceeded to imprison Amy citing that failure to punish her would prompt smart criminals to hire the slaves to commit their crimes.
The Decisions Effects on Politics
With the Dred Scott ruling on 6 March 1857, a majority, particularly the Southern Democrats, anticipated that the Supreme Court ruling would be a blow to the Republican Party. This was because the Republican Party was anti-slavery and founded its theory upon Black Republicanism. Against their anticipation, the decision revived the Republican Party on its anti-slavery course. Republican politicians identified several aspects within the decision that they could censure on their antislavery platform (Gienapp, 2010). However, the re-inspired antislavery platform of the Republican Party posed a potential detriment to the young and rising party. Through its outrageous criticism of Dred Scott decision, the party risked destroying its moderate image among the Northerners. Therefore, it became essential for the party to distant itself from the fanatical abolitionist for it to gain prominence in the national political field. This is because the abolitionists were considered extremely radical to the extent to which they give the impression of being anti-government (Maltz, 2007).
In sharp contrast to Democrats’ anticipation, the Republican Party efficiently utilized the Supreme Court’s decision to boost their anti-slavery efforts. Among the Republican politician, the one who benefited from the Dred Scott decision the most was Abraham Lincoln. During his campaigns for the Illinois senatorial seat in 1858, Lincoln engaged in heated debates with Democrat Stephen A. Douglas. In almost all his speeches, Lincoln condemned the Supreme Court’s decision and attacked Douglas by accusing him of being part of the slave power conspiracy (Gienapp, 2010). On the other hand, Douglas accused Lincoln of being an abolitionist whose interests were to secure equal rights and freedom for the blacks as those enjoyed by the whites.
Sectional Crises and the Civil War
The 1850s were a time coupled with numerous sectional crises in the US. Before the Supreme Court ruling on Scott vs. Sanford, tensions over slavery in Kansas and territories were escalating and resulting in regional conflicts within the country. The 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act was purposely created to lower tension on both sides. It relinquished sovereignty to the people of Nebraska territory and Kansas and allowed them to legalize or prohibit slavery within their boundaries (VanderVelde, 2011). As Dred Scott case advanced in the courts, trouble brew in Kansas the Kansas people had to decide whether to join the Union as a free or slave state. During their vote for a State Constitution, the anti-slavery faction boycotted the election, hence making the pro-slavery fraction the winners. The pro-slavery constitution resulted in a massive controversy and chaos within Kansas as well as across the nation to the point that the President and the federal politicians weighed in on the Lecompton controversy. The Dred Scott decision increased the tension between the South and North. As a result, the Northerners overwhelmingly elected Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, as the president of the US in the 1860 presidential election (Maltz, 2007). This resulted in an issue far more worse than the sectional crises. The southern states started to secede one after the other from the Union and eventually resulted in the 1861-65 Civil War between the Southern Confederates and the Northern Union.
Although the Dred Scott Decision was not one of the key causes of the Civil War, a factor influenced two key causes of the war, that is, the sectional crises and the divisions within the Democratic Party. The Dred Scott decision along with Stephen A. Douglas and the dispute over Lecompton Constitution led to the split between the Northern and Southern Democrats as well as the increasing hostilities between the North and the South. In the 1860 presidential election race, Lincoln garnered himself massive support from both Northern and free states. Throughout his campaign speech, he rebuked the evil of Dred Scott decision and declared his stand against slavery. After he won the election, the southerners were worried that a Republican government would not look after their interests (Gienapp, 2010). Lincoln then appointed anti-slavery Republicans to be territorial and governmental offices hence burred the southern slaveholders to exercising their rights as dictated in the Dred Scott decision. This, along with economic factors, ultimately led to the secession of southern states from both the Union and President Lincoln’s control.
The Decision’s Far-Reaching Effect
The Supreme Court ruling in Scott vs. Sanford case had far-reaching effects despite its fading influence. On 23 February 1865, Senator Lyman Turnbull presented bill No. 748 to Congress to propose the construction of Chief Justice Taney’s bust and place it inside the Supreme Court (Ewing, 2013). Senator Charles and Wilson vehemently opposed the bill citing that the nation had more important issues to address other than setting up a bust of a man they believed was responsible for plunging the nation into Civil War. The Decision continued to play a key role in American society and politics. Although the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments granted blacks full citizenry, they continued to be repressed and considered inferior to whites in the American society (Ewing, 2013).
Conclusion
The Dred Scott decision had a massive impact on American society and politics. It widened the gap between the Northern and Southern States as well as led to the disintegration of the Democrats Party. It also contributed to the victory of Abraham Lincoln as the President in the 1860 presidential election. Consequently, together with economic factors, it led to the secession of the southern states from the Union and President Lincoln’s control. As a result, the country plunged itself into a bloody Civil War that lasted from 1861 to 1865.
References
Allen, A. (2010). Origins of the Dred Scott case: Jacksonian jurisprudence and the Supreme Court, 1837-1857 : University of Georgia Press.
Ewing, E. W. R. (2013). Legal and Historical Status of the Dred Scott Decision . The classics Us.
Gienapp, W. E. (2010). The Republican Party and the Slave Power: Major Problems in the Civil War and Reconstruction: Documents and Essays , 74.
Herda, D. J. (2010). The Dred Scott Case: Slavery and Citizenship . Enslow Publishers, Inc.
Konig, D. T., Finkelman, P., & Bracey, C. A. (Eds.). (2010). The Dred Scott Case: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Race and Law (Vol. 42): Ohio University Press.
Maltz, E. M. (2007). Dred Scott and the Politics of Slavery : University Press of Kansas.
VanderVelde, L. (2011). The Dred Scott case as an American family saga: OAH Magazine of History , 25 (2), 24-28.
