Question

Briefly summarize the facts of the Dred Scott case and the conclusion reached by the Court. Then go through each argument made by Taney and challenged by Curtis and explain which LEGAL reasoning is stronger. Finally, explain why this decision made conflict and war inevitable.

Answer 1

• Dred Scott, an enslaved African American, sued for his freedom in the Dred Scott case.

• The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger Taney, concluded that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, could not be citizens of the United States and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court.

• Taney argued that the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in certain territories, was unconstitutional, while Justice Benjamin Curtis challenged this argument and asserted that the Compromise was constitutional.

Step-by-step explanation:

In terms of legal reasoning, the argument made by Justice Benjamin Curtis is stronger because it aligns with the Constitution and the principles of equality and justice. Curtis argued that the Missouri Compromise was valid and constitutional, as it was within Congress's power to regulate territories. In contrast, Taney's argument that African Americans were not citizens and therefore had no rights contradicted the principles of equal protection under the law, as stated in the Constitution. Curtis's interpretation better preserved the rights and liberties of all individuals, regardless of race.