Dred Scott Decision Essay
Roger Taney and the Dred Scott Decision
The North and the South had very different views on slavery which only grew stronger and separated the two regions leading up to the Civil War. As the Union gained more land the big question was whether the new land would be considered a slave state or a free state. The South needed slaves to do hard labor on their land to keep the economy growing. The North did not have a need for slaves. They feared that allowing slavery in the North would increase large plantations in the area which would threaten their own growing industrial economy. An underlying issue with the South was the fear that the federal government would take control over the individual states and their rights, especially concerning slavery. …show more content…
In 1847, a slave named Dred Scott tried suing for his freedom. Under Missouri law, any slave owner who traveled through Free states with their slave, was instantly emancipating them and it could not be reversed. Having lived in Free states for extended periods of time with his former owner, Dred Scott had the right to sue for his freedom and shouldn’t have had any problem getting it. After rising to the Supreme Court in 1857, his freedom was denied. The denial of freedom wasn’t what angered most people. It was the specific opinion of Chief Justice Roger Taney that was considered majority opinion. Seven of the justices, including Taney, were pro-slavery. Taney’s opinion didn’t just relate to Dred Scott specifically. Taney stated that the founders of the nation did not consider black Americans, free or not, to be citizens and they had no rights under the constitution, especially not the right to bring suit in federal court. He believed that all slaves were considered property, therefore he was never free even though he resided in Free states. He said that denying an owner of their property, such as a slave, would violate part of the Fifth Amendment. He also ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. Since the final decision of this court case was highly anticipated,
The North and the South had very different views on slavery which only grew stronger and separated the two regions leading up to the Civil War. As the Union gained more land the big question was whether the new land would be considered a slave state or a free state. The South needed slaves to do hard labor on their land to keep the economy growing. The North did not have a need for slaves. They feared that allowing slavery in the North would increase large plantations in the area which would threaten their own growing industrial economy. An underlying issue with the South was the fear that the federal government would take control over the individual states and their rights, especially concerning slavery. …show more content…
In 1847, a slave named Dred Scott tried suing for his freedom. Under Missouri law, any slave owner who traveled through Free states with their slave, was instantly emancipating them and it could not be reversed. Having lived in Free states for extended periods of time with his former owner, Dred Scott had the right to sue for his freedom and shouldn’t have had any problem getting it. After rising to the Supreme Court in 1857, his freedom was denied. The denial of freedom wasn’t what angered most people. It was the specific opinion of Chief Justice Roger Taney that was considered majority opinion. Seven of the justices, including Taney, were pro-slavery. Taney’s opinion didn’t just relate to Dred Scott specifically. Taney stated that the founders of the nation did not consider black Americans, free or not, to be citizens and they had no rights under the constitution, especially not the right to bring suit in federal court. He believed that all slaves were considered property, therefore he was never free even though he resided in Free states. He said that denying an owner of their property, such as a slave, would violate part of the Fifth Amendment. He also ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. Since the final decision of this court case was highly anticipated,