Slavery in the Dred Scott Case

Slavery in the Dred Scott Case

The Dred Scott ruling involved a court case where the Supreme Court of the United States decided that a slave who had lived in a free territory and state was not entitled to freedom. The court ruled that blacks were not citizens and could by no means be United States citizens. The court decision was discussed by Abraham Lincoln in his two documents ‘Speech on the Dred Scott Decision’ and ‘Speech before the Republican State Convention (The House Divided Speech).’ Notably, the decision by the court was cited as an appalling example in the history of the court involving a wrongly imposed judicial ruling on a political issue with regard to slavery.

The Dred Scott ruling was partially founded on assumed historical ideas, which were not typically factual. The chief justice, Taney, greatly insisted that African Americans were not a section of the United Citizens, or for whom the nation’s Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence, was made. The delivery of the court’s opinion expressed utter demeanor and disapproval of African Americans as part of the nation and with equal rights. The court ruled that no African American slave imported such as from Africa together with their descendants are entitled to be citizens of any US state (Lincoln, “The House            Divided Speech” 2). In this sense, the court’s ruling was flawed as it shed the Constitution in a bad light. The decision was made to deprive African Americans of the benefits under the US constitution’s provision, which declares that the citizens of states within the nation are entitled to immunities along with all privileges of citizens.

Consequently, the court decision in the Dred Scott case was flawed as it appeared to support slavery while subjecting African Americans to the egregious act. The ruling pointed that neither Territorial Legislature nor Congress could eliminate slavery from US territory in relation to subjectivity to the US Constitution. In this case, the decision implied that individuals had the audacity to continue practicing slavery in the territories without facing any risk of losing them. Therefore, the point was clear that there was enhanced permanency of the slaves to the institution even in the future. Primarily, the court opinion on the legal case, the opinion of the Chief Justice together with the isolated opinions of the like-minded judges clearly declared that the United States Constitution neither permits Territorial legislature or Congress to discount slavery from any territory in the United States. The court’s opinion also expressly omitted whether the Constitution permits or not, the state’s people to exclude slavery. The ruling presents two propositions: firstly, the African Americans did not have the right to sue in the United States courts. Secondly, Congress does not have powers to exclude slavery within the US territories (Lincoln, “The House Divided Speech” 2). As such, the decision emerged from a divided court and also failed to discuss its advantages.

The court decision was detrimental to the northern public opinion as slavery was presented as a dynamic issue in the different states. The power possessed by the states, as well as the restrictions under the United States Constitution was left an open issue. The court decision highlighted a loophole in the United States Constitution, which might be evident in other court decisions along the way. In this case, the ruling declared that the nation’s Constitution does not allow for the exclusion of slavery from a state’s limits. Further on, it became evident that the issue of slavery was left open to be taken in any light as it befitted.

The disastrous decision tragically transformed the northern public view. In two states, namely North Caroline and New Jersey, the right to voting was restricted, although it had previously been granted. In New York, voting rights were greatly abridged, whereas it has further not been stretched to a single extra state even with the increased number of states. As a result of the decision, masters had their individual pleasure to free their slaves. Further on, the legal restraints provided on emancipation amounted to its prohibition, which meant that the emancipation of slaves was almost prohibited (Lincoln, “Speech on the Dred Scott Decision” 2). Additionally, the court decision implied that legislatures held unquestioned power over the abolition of slavery in respective states. Typically, slavery became an open and allowed institution which was a threat to the northern public view. The court had placed a heavy burden on the northern public with its decision as masters now possessed higher privileges and were further supported by the states and law. As such, they were assured of the protection of their rights over the slaves.

In conclusion, the Dred Scott case highlighted the wrongful imposition of judicial position on the critical slavery institution. The court decision in the legal case ruled in favor of masters while demeaning the rights of slaves who were African Americans in this case. Furthermore, the decision mirrored the existing loopholes in the US constitution as it disregarded African Americans as part of the nation. It was apparent that there was enhanced permanency of the slaves to the institution even in the future.