Dred Scott v. Sandford was a long fight for freedom, and the case persisted through various courts until it reached the US Supreme Court. The case’s decision gave momentum to the anti-slavery movement, incensed abolitionists, and served as a stepping stone to Civil War. Dred and Harriet filed separate lawsuits for freedom against Emerson, but since none could read or write, they got financial and logistical assistance from their abolitionists and church. During the appeal at Supreme Court, the case gained notoriety, and Scott had support from many abolitionists, such as high-profile attorneys and powerful politicians. The Supreme Court ruled that enslaved people were not US citizens and could not be protected by the courts or government (Doubravová, 2021). This decision caused intense disunion and catalyzed the American Civil War because abolitionists saw the ruling as a way of stopping the debate about slavery.
The Dred Scott case was a major catalyst for American Civil War because Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that Scotts were not citizens and neither were any slaves. According to the court ruling, slaves did not have rights to be respected. Scott was born a slave, but he was owned by two different families moving with them to places where slavery was prohibited. Since there was a law that once frees always free, Scott and his wife Harriet claimed their freedom by filing a case against their master John Sandford. Two Missouri statutes formed the basis under which Scott fought for their freedom because one statute allowed people of color to sue for wrongful enslavement, and the other stated that if any slave was taken to free territory, they could not be re-enslaved even when they returned to a slave state because they automatically became free. For instance, Scott felt they were wrongfully enslaved and needed freedom. Also, having been moving from one territory to the other, Scott passed through slave-free territories and was, therefore, free and could sue Sandford for re-enslavement.
The Dred Scott decision outraged abolitionists because they considered slavery morally wrong. The decision was a divisive issue in national politics because when the antislavery North was angered, the South celebrated because they believed in slavery and needed the slaves the most to work in their plantations. According to the Georgia newspaper, the Southerners considered slavery as a supreme law of the land following the Supreme Court’s decision. The country was pushed closer toward the American Civil War because, for the longest time South and North differed on the slavery issue (Finkelman, 2022). The southern economy depended entirely on cotton grown on plantations, and all the labor came from African Americans working as slaves. The Northern economy depended on manufacturing, and they paid their workers. Therefore, the North fought against slavery, considering it immoral, while the South held to it because it benefited them. Many other factors caused the American Civil War, but the difference in slavery between the North and South was a major issue. The North respected people of color and valued the labor they paid them for their work, but the Southerners considered slaves as their property and could use them the way they wanted.
The Supreme Court’s ruling catalyzed the American Civil War by declaring the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and maintaining that Congress could not abolish or forbid slavery in the territories. Slavery in many territories had been considered unconstitutional, especially in the North, and slaves had been freed. Following the Missouri Compromise, Scott found the reason to fight for freedom because slavery was forbidden in that state, and any person who held slavery could sue the master. However, the Supreme Court decision on Dred Scott’s case created tension in the country as the court struck down the Compromise as unconstitutional, meaning slaves could not get freedom regardless of location. Also, Congress had powers to make certain laws, including prohibiting slavery in states, but when the Dred Scott case was determined, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have such powers and should not forbid slavery in any state (Finkelman, 2022). The Civil War gained popularity through this ruling overturning Congress’s power and termed the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional in favor of Sandford, who enslaved African Americans.
In conclusion, Dred Scott v. Sandford was a freedom case between Dred Scott, a slave and Sandford, the owner of the slave. Although Scott had been born in slavery, he moved with his owners to different states that forbid slavery and could fight for his freedom because the law stated once free, always free. Despite the many attempts to fight for freedom, the Supreme Court ruled against Scott, catalyzing the American Civil War. The case contributed to the war because the ruling continued slavery by stating that slaves had no rights to be respected. Also, the decision outraged abolitionists who considered slavery immoral, and the differences between the North and South grew because they had different views on slavery. Lastly, the ruling considered Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, which provoked politicians and grew their anger leading to Civil War.
References
Doubravová, L. (2021). The 1857 Dred Scott Decision.
Finkelman, P. (2022). The First Civil Rights Movement: Black Rights in the Age of the Revolution and Chief Taney’s Originalism in Dred Scott. U. Pa. J. Const. L., 24, 676.
write