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,...

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.