The Dred Scott Case had a significant impact on the United States as it exists today. Considered by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to be the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court, it was eventually overturned. This case was crucial in addressing the issue of slavery. Originally, it began with a slave, Dred Scott, seeking his rightful freedom, and later expanded into something much more substantial. The reasons behind Scott’s decision to pursue his freedom remain unknown, but there are a couple of theories. One possibility is that after engaging in discussions with other slaves who had undertaken similar actions, Scott chose to bring his case to court.
According to Herda (30), Scott was not ignorant or uninformed and had valid reasons to believe he could obtain freedom for himself and his family. He carefully evaluated the issue before deciding to sue. The Blows, who were sympathetic to his troubles, may have influenced his decision as well. The Blows, who were once his owners but turned into friends, consistently supported Scott throughout his life. Their encouragement, combined with the actions of other slaves, may have ultimately convinced Scott to pursue the lawsuit for his freedom. Additionally, Scott’s original lawyer Samuel Mansfield Bay may have been motivated by the potential monetary reward for his services to Scott, leading him to initiate litigation.
For instance, some believe that Bays’ intention was to clear the path for a lawsuit against the Emerson estate in order to claim the twelve years worth of wages that Scott would be owed, as stated by Herda (29). This indicates that money may have been the motivating factor behind this case. It also demonstrates that Scott might have been influenced by someone else’s reasoning to pursue the lawsuit. Furthermore, if this speculation is true and Scott had been unlawfully held as a slave since 1834 (Herda, 30), it implies that he would be eligible for compensation and entitled to a significant sum of money. Additionally, it highlights how a master’s mistake in allowing a slave to accompany him while traveling through free states could lead to the slave’s freedom being invoked and result in the master losing years of wages, even if subsequently spent in Missouri, a slave state.
In summary, although this case may have initially been motivated by financial factors, it became evident that the decision was influenced by various controversial aspects beyond monetary considerations. 205The first case reached a decision in only one day, which was remarkably fast considering it took fourteen months for the case to go to trial. However, there were valid reasons for this. For instance, the judge concluded that the testimony failed to establish Irene Emerson’s ownership of Dred Scott (Lukes, 21). This demonstrates that Dred Scott bore the burden of proving his ownership to obtain a ruling on his freedom.
This paragraph highlights the significance of a minor mistake made by one party, which can greatly impact the verdict of a case. Moreover, according to the record, it was stated that the defendant is innocent in the exact way and manner that the plaintiff has accused her in the declaration (Lukes 22). This indicates that due to the mistake made by Scott’s attorney during the argument, the court had to rule in favor of Mrs. Emerson. This unique twist of events ultimately allowed Mrs. Emerson to prevail.
Emerson was urged to keep her slaves by lawyers who argued that no one had proven they were her slaves. Despite losing in the initial court appearance, Dred Scott’s second set of attorneys, Alexander P. Field and David N. Hall, filed an appeal in the hopes of being denied another hearing, which would allow them to take the case to the United States Supreme Court. However, during the appeal, both Scott’s and Sanford’s lawyers only relied on previously introduced arguments and did not call any witnesses or introduce any new evidence. This indicates that the appeal was seen as merely a symbolic step forward in the case.
The text emphasizes the ability of lawyers to manipulate the judicial system in order to achieve a specific outcome. It also highlights the lack of questioning by the appeals court regarding the attorneys’ poor effort to win the appeal. As anticipated, Judge Wells rejected a motion for a new trial, which indicates a failure to consider the broader implications. Consequently, this situation demonstrates how the court can downplay significant concerns, potentially leading to their escalation.
In conclusion, the lawyers lost the case, so if they lose again, they may have the opportunity to take it to the United States Supreme Court. Once there, Scott’s fourth lawyer, Montgomery Blair, had to face a hesitant court. For instance, he had to demonstrate to the chief justices that Scott should be free because he had resided in Illinois, a free state. (Herda, 50) This indicates that the court was reluctant to consider the idea of a slave being set free and wanted to avoid extending the power to declare slaves as free.
The text emphasizes Mr. Blair’s belief that Scott’s residency in free states had freed him from slavery, along with his argument utilizing a previous ruling in order to persuade the Supreme Court that free African Americans should be considered U.S. citizens. The argument focused on the lower court’s acknowledgment that free African Americans were indeed citizens and thus eligible to file a lawsuit in Federal Court (Herda, 50). This illustrates how Scott’s attorney thought he was being clever by referencing a previous ruling, but the Supreme Court used the language of the decision to declare that state courts lacked authority to hear the case. Consequently, the entire case was dismissed, and the validity of the ruling regarding Federal Court was nullified. This further demonstrates how interpretation plays a crucial role in the law and can influence biased decisions. To summarize, Scott’s attorney aimed to leverage a lower court ruling to sway the higher court’s decision; however, he was outmaneuvered by the Court, which used the ruling against him in an unexpected manner and barred him from further arguing the case in Federal courts.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in 1857 was unexpected by some and welcomed by others. The court managed to find a way to avoid hearing the Dred Scott Case and even declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Chief Justice Taney’s decision states that the judgment of the Circuit Court in this case is reversed. This indicates that the Supreme Court was willing to criticize the Missouri courts but did not find fault with Missouri’s conclusion, only their belief that they had jurisdiction to handle the matter. Furthermore, this decision shows that the court had already determined that Dred Scott should not be emancipated, without even examining the facts.
In addition, Chief Justice Taney and the others determined that the case should be remanded to the same Circuit Court with instructions to dismiss it due to the court’s lack of jurisdiction. This demonstrates that they believed that the court’s inability to rule appropriately was the only issue that needed to be addressed. Additionally, it illustrates how a biased (pro-slavery) court could influence a decision. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott could remain a slave and did not support the restriction of slavery. In conclusion, the Dred Scott Decision went through a lengthy and ultimately dismissed journey in the court system.
The Dred Scott Case, discussed in The Dred Scott Case: Slavery and Citizenship by D.J. Herda, focused on the unpopular topic of freedom for slaves. Despite its lack of recognition, the case sheds light on the tensions surrounding slavery that ultimately contributed to the Civil War. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case is widely regarded as the worst decision ever made due to its significant impact.
Luke, Bonnie. The Dred Scott Decision. San Diego, California: Lucent Books, 1997. URL: http://www.nara.gov/exhall/originals/scott.html
