  The controversial case involving slavery and states' rights, debated as the country headed toward civil war. (15 min) |
|
| Teacher's Guide•Scott vs. Sandford (The Dred Scott Decision) The requirement that judges restrain their personal feelings and prevent outside factors from influencing their judicial decisions can be traced back to English common law. This practice is known as judicial restraint, and the abandonment of this essential principle is at the heart of a controversial case known as The Dred Scott Decision. The Dred Scott Decision involved slavery and states’ rights, two subjects that elicited strong opinions from almost all Americans—subjects that even U.S. justices seemed unable to confront with professional open-mindedness and judicial restraint. Ultimately, the course of this case testified to the breakdown of compromise between North and South, a breakdown that led the country to civil war. Questions for Discussion, Review and Research 1. If the Supreme Court had exercised judicial restraint in deciding the Dred Scott case, what kind of decision (or decisions) might it have reached? 2. Why has it been said that the Dred Scott decision destroyed any chance for moderates on both sides to reach an agreement on the slavery issue? Do you agree with the statement? 3. Was Chief Justice Taney correct in his assertion that the authors of the Constitution did not consider blacks, whether slave or free, to be United States citizens? 4. What aspect of the decision was most upsetting to opponents of slavery? What were the implications of the decision in regard to the right to own slaves even in states where slavery was forbidden? 5. Why was the transfer of the Scotts’ ownership from Mrs. Emerson to her brother in New York important in getting the case into the federal courts? What part of the constitution covers this? |
|