Dred Scott was a Missouri slave who filed a lawsuit claiming he should be a free citizen. Scott’s argument was that his owner took him into a slave free state – Illinois, and returned him back home to Missouri. Under Missouri law Scott should be a free man, but the federal court did not see it that way. Supreme Court Chief Justice, Robert Taney, agreed to hear the case (Dred Scott v Sandford) in 1857.
Taney, writing for the majority, ruled that the Supreme Court had no federal jurisdiction to prevent the spread of slavery into territories and therefore, upheld the lower court’s decision. Taney argued that the issue was entirely up to Missouri to decide and proclaimed the original intent of the Constitution did not recognize African-Americans as United States citizens. The Taney decision was consistent with his past rulings since he was an avid supporter of state rights. Although many considered Taney a supporter of slavery, that was not entirely true. Taney was a slave owner in Maryland, but he freed his slaves’ decades earlier. He also provided his former slaves with a stipend when they were too old to work.
The Dred Scott decision outraged the North and historians cite this decision as one of the indirect causes leading to the Civil War. This is a misguided view held by most historians; the impact of the Scott decision was much more powerful and was in fact, a leading reason for the outbreak of the Civil War. The Dred Scott decision sealed the fate that the next president of the United States would be a Republican and Democrat James Buchanan would be a one term President. Thus, the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, was elected in 1860. What if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dred Scott? Would this have changed history? If so, would it have changed history for the better or for the worse? These are the questions most individuals fail to ask when acknowledging the Dred Scott decision was fundamentally wrong.
Arguably, had the Dred Scott ruling gone in his favor, it is very conceivable that the history for the American slave could have been impacted in negative way. First, Abraham Lincoln and the anti-slavery Republican Party may never have come to power. Not a single southern state voted for Lincoln and 7 states succeeded from the Union between his election and inauguration. Southern states feared Lincoln would abolish slavery outright. Had Buchanan won the 1860 election he was not going to go to war against the South, he feared all along that the Republicans staunch anti-slavery movement would destroy the Union. In fact, if Buchanan was reelected it is debatable as to whether or not the South would have succeeded from the Union. This would have undoubtedly changed the course of history and most certainly delayed the passing of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments. This obviously would have been detrimental result for the American slave.
Secondly, many insist a Taney decision in favor of Scott would have angered the South into succeeding from the union sooner. Had this happened, it is still debatable as to whether or not this decision would have resulted in a Civil War or if the South would have been allowed to create its own nation without a struggle. And if there was a Civil War struggle, would the North still have won? Remember the South was winning the Civil War up to the final year of the struggle when General Ulysses Grant was appointed to head the Union Army. This move swung the momentum of the Civil War in the North’s favor as Grant led the Union Army to victory after victory. If another person was President other than Lincoln, would they have had the same strong leadership skills, conviction, and fortitude to keep fighting and not give up? One thing is for certain, slavery in the South would not have been abolished without a conflict.
At best, history would have remained unchanged had the Dred Scott ruling gone in his favor. If this is true, then the Dred Scott ruling by the Taney court had no negative impact on the abolishment of slavery and the freedom of African-Americans. However, if the ruling had been reversed, it is conceivable that the African-American struggle for freedom in the United States could have been altered for the worse.
Thus, Roger Taney was correct not create legislation by ruling in favor of Dred Scott. He was right to let the states decide these issues per the tenth amendment. The correct way to change the Constitution is not via the Supreme Court, but instead through the drafting of amendments by the legislative branch. The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments were a direct result of Taney’s Dred Scott ruling via the North’s victory in the Civil War. Thus, the Dred Scott ruling, as unfair and unjust as it may seem today, was the correct decision at the time. History has a way of working out for the better if it is done within the confines of the law. Government interference to force political correctness usually only manages to delay the intended act. This would have been the result of a favorable Dred Scott ruling. Another example of this phenomenon was the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v The Board of Education that created a law whose intent was to force integration. It did not work.
No comments:
Post a Comment