Pros and cons of Dred Scott V. Sanford?
Just a little confused... Can somebody help me?
- Anonymous6 years agoFavorite Answer
Not many pros, since it invalidated every compromise that had come before it to forestall the Civil War. Basically it said that a black man had no rights that a white man was bound to respect. Roger Taney, Supreme Court Chief Justice, was from slave holding, border state, Maryland, and he was pro-slavery (including the expansion thereof) all the way. In the North, people denounced the ruling as madness, as it in essense erased the Mason Dixon line established by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Suddenly slavery was again possible as far north as Maine, even though 95% of the people of Maine thought that slavery sucked.
Dred Scott, a slave, was taken by his master, a Mr Sanford to areas on the Mississippi River as far North as Minnesota and Wisconsin as a slave. Scott sued for his freedom originally in the US District Court of Missouri (another slave holding, border state - that stayed in the Union during the Civil War as did Maryland), in St Louis. The District Court Judge Robt W Wells (a slave holding Union man, though against slavery's expansion) ruled against Scott on several technicalities, which kicked the case to the Federal Appeals Court in St Louis and ultimately to Washington and the Supreme Court.
Scott's Attorney was a Montgomery Blair, again a slave holder from St Louis, who was loyal to the Union in the Civil War. Chief Justice Taney actually thought the ruling settled the controvery over slavery, which it did not. In 1859, John Brown's men captured the arsenal at Harper's Ferry. In 1860, upon Lincoln's election, secession began in December, when South Carolina led the way.