Dred Scott Case Study

The Dred Scott case was a landmark case that sparked uproar from state officials after Chief Justice Taney gave the majority opinion of the court. Dred Scott was a slave owned by an army surgeon, Dr. John Emerson, with whom Scott traveled to the free state of Illinois. Following a two and a half year stay in Illinois, Scott and his master moved to Wisconsin, also a free state. However, Scott’s extended stay in Illinois gave him the power to make a legal standing to request his freedom, however Scott never followed through possibly due to his ignorance of the statute. After Emerson’s death, Scott was hired out to an army captain, which then prompted Scott to request his freedom. In June of 1847, Dred Scott went to trial in order to legally win …show more content…
His opinion would rattle the crusaders for states rights as he made it very clear in his decision that the Missouri Compromise was un constitutional on the grounds that congress does not have the right to interfere with the ownership of personal property. Hence the Missouri Compromise, which split free and slaves states were no longer considered constitutional. Taney argued that the states did not have the power to grant citizenship in the US due to the Constitution’s meaning of “We the people” and “citizens” does not classify blacks as such due to their family roots in Africa. Taney implies that citizenship in a single state has absolutely no bearing to citizenship in any other state, or the United States for that matter due to the lack of collaboration between the states and federal government to deem people citizens of the US. Taney very clearly spells out the final decision of the states rights to citizenship when he explains “It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States”. Taney strips the states the right to grant citizenship to its people, thus posing the question of a consolidated confederacy under one federal government. Contrary to the belief of being a citizen to …show more content…
The Supreme Court in this case, essentially threw out the Missouri Compromise, which was essentially only legislation keeping the battle between free states and slave states at bay. The Missouri Compromise was the only remaining bandage left covering the wound between the northern and southern states, due to the division of slave ownership. The reason behind labeling the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional is due to the fact that congress has no power to pass any legislature concerning personal property, and by doing so would infringe upon individuals personal rights. However, if all of the above was not enough to frighten the state rights fighters, then the fact that this Supreme Court decision essentially stripped states the right to decide whether or not they wanted to allow or ban slavery would most likely be the cherry on top. Due to the fact that the Missouri Compromise was deemed unconstitutional, the federal government could no longer ban slavery in certain states, therefore allowing for any state to support or ban slavery at will. The problem with this initiative was the fact that there would not be an imbalance in the house and senate due to the unequal influx of free and slave states, which means less state representation. In the end, it is clear that Taney’s majority opinion should and most likely did strike fear into the hearts of states rights supporters. The Supreme Court’s