Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect, rollback
9,147
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 19:
Line 19: − + + + + + + + + − Line 41:
Line 47: + + − + + + + − *''The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics''. Don E. Fehrenbacher, 1978. − {{reflist}} +
Dissent, ref
On its way to the [[Supreme Court]], the Dred Scott [[case]] grew in scope and significance as [[slavery]] became the single most explosive issue in [[American]] politics. By the time the case reached the high court, it had come to have enormous political implications for the entire nation. The sectional controversy over slavery had grown to the point where the Northern and Southern wings of the [[Democratic Party]] could only agree on giving the territorial governments all Constitutional power over slavery - but they could not agree on what powers they could Constitutionally have, and only achieved a fragile truce by agreeing to leave the matter up to the Supreme Court.
On its way to the [[Supreme Court]], the Dred Scott [[case]] grew in scope and significance as [[slavery]] became the single most explosive issue in [[American]] politics. By the time the case reached the high court, it had come to have enormous political implications for the entire nation. The sectional controversy over slavery had grown to the point where the Northern and Southern wings of the [[Democratic Party]] could only agree on giving the territorial governments all Constitutional power over slavery - but they could not agree on what powers they could Constitutionally have, and only achieved a fragile truce by agreeing to leave the matter up to the Supreme Court.
Into this climate came the Dred Scott case. The Supreme Court heard the first oral arguments in February 1856, but later called for a re-hearing in December. On March 6, 1857, two days after the inauguration of President [[James Buchanan]], the Court voted 7-2 against Scott (60 U.S. 393). While all nine justices wrote separate opinions, [[Chief Justice]] [[Roger B. Taney]] said in the officially-designated "opinion of the court" that:
Into this climate came the Dred Scott case. The Supreme Court heard the first oral arguments in February 1856, but later called for a re-hearing in December. On March 6, 1857, two days after the inauguration of President [[James Buchanan]], the Court voted 7-2 against Scott (60 U.S. 393). While all nine justices wrote separate opinions, [[Chief Justice]] [[Roger B. Taney]] wrote the officially-designated "opinion of the court". The two dissenters were [[John McLean]] and [[Benjamin Robbins Curtis]]
===Opinion===
* Scott was not a citizen, and therefore had no right to sue in Federal court.
* Scott was not a citizen, and therefore had no right to sue in Federal court.
* Blacks had no rights to be citizens, even in the North.
* Blacks had no rights to be citizens, even in the North.
* Neither Congress nor a territorial government could ban slavery from a Federal territory, because it violated slaveholders' rights to [[due process of law]].
* Neither Congress nor a territorial government could ban slavery from a Federal territory, because it violated slaveholders' rights to [[due process of law]].
===Dissent===
* "Under the late treaty with Mexico we made citizens of all grades, combinations and colors."
* "Free colored persons were then citizens of at least five States, and so in every sense part of the people of the United States, they were among those for whom and whose posterity the Constitution was ordained and established."
* "When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean."
==Reaction==
==Reaction==
The [[Republican Party]] quickly protested the decision, saying that most of Taney's opinion was [[obitur dicta]] and therefore void - after ruling that Scott had no right to sue, he should have ended his opinion there. [[Abraham Lincoln]] argued that the Dred Scott case was part of a pro-slavery conspiracy: the reasoning Taney had used to force slavery upon the territories would allow a future court to force slavery upon Northern states.<ref>[http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/debate1.htm Transcript of the first Lincoln-Douglas Debate]</ref> Many Northern states also protested the decision by effectively nullifying parts of it within their state bounds.
The [[Republican Party]] quickly protested the decision, saying that most of Taney's opinion was [[obitur dicta]] and therefore void - after ruling that Scott had no right to sue, he should have ended his opinion there. [[Abraham Lincoln]] argued that the Dred Scott case was part of a pro-slavery conspiracy: the reasoning Taney had used to force slavery upon the territories would allow a future court to force slavery upon Northern states.<ref>[http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/debate1.htm Transcript of the first Lincoln-Douglas Debate]</ref> Many Northern states also protested the decision by effectively nullifying parts of it within their state bounds.
The one point still cited with favor today is Taney's technical discussion of a plea in averment. Besides that, the Dred Scott case has become a byword for unjust decisions.
The one point still cited with favor today is Taney's technical discussion of a plea in averment. Besides that, the Dred Scott case has become a byword for unjust decisions.
==Bibliography==
*''The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics''. Don E. Fehrenbacher, 1978.
== References ==
==References==
{{reflist|1}}
==External links==
*[http://www.blackpast.org/?q=primary/dred-scott-decision Abridged transcript of Chief Justice Taney's opinion]
*[http://www.blackpast.org/?q=primary/dred-scott-decision Abridged transcript of Chief Justice Taney's opinion]
*[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZS.html Full text of all nine opinions]
*[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZS.html Full text of all nine opinions]
*[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html PBS account of the case and its history]
*[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html PBS account of the case and its history]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]][[Category:Civil Rights]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]][[Category:Civil Rights]]