Is it fair for a Supreme Court Justice to follow public opinion instead of seeing the case through the law? Originally Africans were captured and taken to the United States by the Dutch in 1619. During the next couple of decades, more Africans and Caucasians were brought as apprentices and indentured servants to become free after their time was served. As time passed the Africans were no longer indentured servants, but rather moved down the socioeconomic scale around the 1650’s. They remained as slaves while, their white counterparts became free. Eventually, all thirteen colonies had African slavery and it was lifelong and inherited. They were no longer treated as humans but, instead treated as “property” because they could be sold. If a
…show more content…
Slavery was the main political issue of the day. There were two justices mainly involved in this case. Roger Taney was the justice who wrote the majority opinion in the Dred Scott Case. He was born into a family of tobacco farmers which held slaves. Taney was appointed by Andrew Jackson a pro slavery President to the Supreme Court. Taney had set his own slaves free and had represented abolitionists in legal issues. He supported the gradual decline of slavery which he believed was not moral for our country. Taney, contradicted his beliefs when he wrote the decision for the Dred Scott Case. Benjamin Curtis, another Justice in the case wrote the main dissent. His opinion of slavery was not biased but rather considered moderate.
Curtis, upset by the result of the Dred Scott case, stated that “he doubted his usefulness in the Court in its state” (Curtis qtd. in Breyer) and resigned after only six years on the court. Curtis and John McLean of Ohio were the only two Justices that thought Dred Scott was indeed a citizen. Curtis stated that if the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction based on citizenship than it had no right to decide the Dred Scott case. Justice Curtis thought when Dred Scott was in free territory, married, and had a child that the “law of the localities” determined that he was a free …show more content…
His freedom was purchased by his childhood friend who was also his original owner’s son. Dred Scott was a free man for a short nine months, before passing away from tuberculosis. He never did become a citizen even though he was a free man.
The decision brought great unrest in the United States. The abolitionists were outraged by the language that Judge Taney used. They believed it was disgraceful for a judge to utter such language, and atrocious that the other judges would allow it. The people of the United States were torn apart in their opinion of slavery, which created a war. The Civil War led to the end of slavery, citizenship for all races of people, and a lesson for Justices to believe in their own opinion. This case proved that all people have rights no matter their race or beliefs. These freedoms make the United States of America a diverse but inclusive
Slavery was the main political issue of the day. There were two justices mainly involved in this case. Roger Taney was the justice who wrote the majority opinion in the Dred Scott Case. He was born into a family of tobacco farmers which held slaves. Taney was appointed by Andrew Jackson a pro slavery President to the Supreme Court. Taney had set his own slaves free and had represented abolitionists in legal issues. He supported the gradual decline of slavery which he believed was not moral for our country. Taney, contradicted his beliefs when he wrote the decision for the Dred Scott Case. Benjamin Curtis, another Justice in the case wrote the main dissent. His opinion of slavery was not biased but rather considered moderate.
Curtis, upset by the result of the Dred Scott case, stated that “he doubted his usefulness in the Court in its state” (Curtis qtd. in Breyer) and resigned after only six years on the court. Curtis and John McLean of Ohio were the only two Justices that thought Dred Scott was indeed a citizen. Curtis stated that if the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction based on citizenship than it had no right to decide the Dred Scott case. Justice Curtis thought when Dred Scott was in free territory, married, and had a child that the “law of the localities” determined that he was a free …show more content…
His freedom was purchased by his childhood friend who was also his original owner’s son. Dred Scott was a free man for a short nine months, before passing away from tuberculosis. He never did become a citizen even though he was a free man.
The decision brought great unrest in the United States. The abolitionists were outraged by the language that Judge Taney used. They believed it was disgraceful for a judge to utter such language, and atrocious that the other judges would allow it. The people of the United States were torn apart in their opinion of slavery, which created a war. The Civil War led to the end of slavery, citizenship for all races of people, and a lesson for Justices to believe in their own opinion. This case proved that all people have rights no matter their race or beliefs. These freedoms make the United States of America a diverse but inclusive