Federalist Papers John S.) Chief

Federalist Papers

John S.)

Chief Justice Taney's Dred Scott Decision

Chief Justice Roger Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case was surprising. Not only did he rule that Dred Scott was not a citizen, and so the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to review the case, but also that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Taney's decision rationale for making his decision in the Dred Scott case was that no state can make someone a citizen, and thus Dred Scott cannot go from a slave and property to a citizen. According to the law Dred Scott was not a slave, but was property, and whether he was taken to a free state or not, it did not matter to his freedom because a person does not lose his or her property when going to do different states. A ruling in favor of Dred Scott, according to Chief Justice Taney, would then give equal rights to all slaves and thus to property in free states, and this meant that Dred Scott was not a citizen of any state and that the Supreme Court lacked authority to rule on the issue, thus not freeing Dred Scott. Chief Justice Taney then took the decision a step farther in ruling that Congress, in the Missouri Compromise, had overstepped its boundaries in making new territories free or not and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional disagree with the rationale because I believe a person should have been free if taken to a free state because if not free in a free state that means slavery exists in any state regardless of the laws. I do not believe his rationale, which stuck to the letter of the law was what the spirit of the writers of the laws of the United States had in mind. I believe that Dred Scott was a person and should have been treated as one and not merely as property. He was free, and went to St. Louis as a free man even voluntary. If he had stayed in Minnesota this case would probably never had been an issue, however I am sure Dred Scott considered himself a free man. In the end though, it did not matter what he considered himself, because he was ruled not even to be a citizen. Furthermore Chief Justice Taney went too far in ruling the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, as it seems he was almost on a vendetta to increase the spread of slavery and hurt slave rights. But then again, to Chief Justice Taney slaves held no rights and could not go to court so that was meaningless. However, I feel slaves should have had some kind of rights and even if laws against slaves were abused they should have recourse to go to the Supreme Court if necessary. Completely disregarding slaves as people was a mistake, and one that would be corrected by the Civil War. There were Justices that dissented against the Chief Justice Taney's decision which means he was not unanimous in his decision. This shows that there are flaws in his arguments.