Читать книгу American Civil War For Dummies - Keith D. Dickson - Страница 47

Dred Scott, a slave belonging to an army doctor, had been taken from Missouri, which allowed slavery, to two non-slaveholding states, Illinois and Wisconsin, in the 1830s. After the doctor’s death, Scott claimed he was no longer a slave because he had resided in free states. The case wound its way through the lower courts until it came to the Supreme Court in 1856. Lawyers are sometimes more confusing than historians. Essentially, Scott’s lawyers argued that a slave once in free territory was a free man.

In retrospect, the Supreme Court could have avoided a great deal of trouble by simply ruling in favor of the lower court’s decision, which pointed out that the Constitution did not recognize slaves as citizens. But because slavery and its extension into new territories had become such a contentious issue, the Court took on Scott’s case with the goal of settling the issue once and for all. Unfortunately, the Court was involving itself into a highly volatile political situation. This was not the time for another view to be added to a very angry debate. Nevertheless, Roger B. Taney, the chief justice (and a Southern Democrat), lit the fuse on the powder keg.

The Court ruled seven to two against Scott’s claim. Interestingly, each judge decided to write his own opinion. Taney’s became the decision of record. On the basic issue of Scott’s freedom, the Court agreed with the lower court’s determination that Scott was not a citizen of either a state or the United States, and therefore could not bring a suit before a court. Taney could have stopped there, but he went on to find that Scott was still a slave because neither Congress nor any territorial legislature had the authority to restrict slavery anywhere.