Dred Scott V Sandford Case Study

Roger B. Taney and John McLean: On Dred Scott v. Sandford case Slavery was pervasive in the South of the United States, where virtually all states in this territory relied on cash crop farming and as such used the slaves to perform manual work. The slaves were treated harshly and subjected to horrible conditions to provide sordid labor. On the advent of President Abraham Lincoln’s rule, various reforms began that ushered in the battle for slave freedom. The northern states were utterly averse to slavery while about ten southern states clung on and defended it on the basis of managing their economy. This dissension culminated in the American civil war from 1861-1865. While opinions were diverse among individuals, the people in authority had

For the last two decades of the eighteenth century to the mid-nineteenth century, there was the case of whether or not slavery was permissible in the new states. This threatened to weaken the Union. Dread Scott, drawn from Missouri to Chicago (Illinois and Minnesota) posts was a slave to John Emerson, who was an army surgeon. Scott sought legal action for his freedom in 1846, basing on the ground that he was staying in a Free State. The verdict ruled that African-Americans in slave territories were not free; African-Americans did not comprise the sovereign people who made the constitution; congress had no authority to prevent slavery in any state, and the Missouri compromise was against the

Taney, the chief justice was a former slave owner. When the Congress ratified freedom unanimously in the states of the union, Taney must have been obliged, but unwilling to let go of his servitude since he held public office. However, Taney had already tasted the gains of slave trade and service and would not subscribe to the idea of freedom to water down those benefits. This is a reflection of Taney’s avarice and hypocrisy at the expense of any principles that formed the US constitution at the time. Some critics might argue, absurdly, that McLean’s view stemmed from his position on the sidelines. However, being one of the only two dissenters in the nine-member chamber, his opinion splendidly mirrors his loyalty to the constitution and his unfaltering intent to safeguard its provisions regardless of the status of the territories in question. He expressed concerns that the constitutional provisions were being violated on the basis of safeguarding state interests. According to McLean, the institutionalization of slavery was the wrong and an ill-fated approach to boosting the economy of the