Dred Scott Decision: The Role of Supreme Court and Political Parties

Introduction

Dred Scott is a person I have heard of growing up, but I never truly paid much attention to his story. The decision involving Dred Scott is commonly referred to as the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, decided by the United States Supreme Court. I always thought that African Americans had little to do with the courts in those times. The Supreme Court's ruling was harsh, stating that if a person was of African descent and brought to the United States as a slave, they had no rights. Moreover, people of African descent had no protection under the Constitution and could not be considered American citizens. The Court further extended its power by denying Congress the authority to prohibit or regulate slavery. It seemed that African descents were considered the property of slave-owners and the white man, regardless of any objections, in my opinion. Since African descendants were not considered American, they had no right to sue in the courts.

Dred Scott Decision: The Role of Supreme Court and Political Parties

The overarching question behind the Dred Scott decision was whether taking a slave into a free state would result in that slave becoming free. The Supreme Court ruled that slavery could not be prohibited and should be nationalized, arguing that they couldn't deprive people of their property, as they had a Constitutional right to it. At this time, the Republican movement was growing larger and larger. Deep Southerners feared that Republicans would seek to end slavery, at least in states like Alabama. They began to question whether the South should secede from the Union if a Republican were elected. The incident at Harper’s Ferry also contributed to this fear. John Brown led an assault on the federal armory at Harper’s Ferry, hoping to distribute weapons to slaves and incite a rebellion. As fear heightened, the South formed militias to defend against a possible uprising. By the end of 1859, some Southerners began to demand a federal slave code, previously proposed in the Alabama platform by William Lowndes Yancey. Yancey and other southern radicals pushed the Democratic Party to commit to federal legislation to protect slavery in the territories. However, many Southerners were critical of this additional slave code, viewing it as unnecessary. They understood that Democrats from free states could not support such a law and hoped to gain support in those states where anti-slavery sentiment was strong. This led to a split among Southern Democrats regarding the best strategy to defeat a Republican nominee in the 1860 election.

The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision was a landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, holding that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and, therefore, had no standing to sue in Federal Court. The Court also ruled that the Federal Government had no authority to regulate slavery in federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved African American man taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court denied Scott's request. This decision marked only the second time in history that the Supreme Court ruled an Act of Congress unconstitutional, reflecting the Court's deference to the societal and cultural norms of the era.

The Judiciary and Socio-Political Context

The judiciary does not operate in a vacuum and is influenced by the socio-political conditions of its time. This highlights the question of whether the judiciary should step in when the legislature and executive are hesitant to make unpopular policy decisions for fear of losing voter support. The Dred Scott decision illustrates how the judiciary can sometimes reflect the prevailing attitudes and tensions within society.

Conclusion

The Dred Scott decision remains one of the most controversial rulings in American history, reflecting the deep divisions and conflicts over slavery that would eventually lead to the Civil War. It underscores the complex interplay between the judiciary, legislative actions, and societal values, reminding us of the ongoing struggle for civil rights and equality.

References:

• Fehrenbacher, D. E. (1978). The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics. Oxford University Press.
• Finkelman, P. (2011). Dred Scott v. Sandford: A Brief History with Documents. Bedford/St. Martin's.
• Scott, D. (1857). Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393.