ÿWPC³  jÙž¹£;›Ö¯„?’T.è^;›Nîû†È#2¯³¾Šžî£?8»w¨¥›”ÊŒ~¡x­dGôR–¾f 0Ær$ë¢RƒÜmJ¢ÌërNSè&î¢C‘OÝ£@3O¼ÁEøéÎÒkãÃ9x ›)Dm|ëe3ȃ†ƒ†k¹2°Múxô ÿ•ÑÂÑÂfætvbcŽ«ƒ]tÅ£ðz85 u,‚%;ç8óD¤`žÓSÅ"—C×}ø¬7_å0Qîf2"Õ XÑþ)÷Ð ¸R9ÛrÏJ»I¦­W™ÉÛT9ô3K$ï Ÿs/*¶á²⊷¢ÆF Ÿ>¿à/‹·=šÂ6œR €X›ô¢utÙù·f2÷?ý à?ðe¨“)Î-çn¿º5è ê[ Ì®&ç™M„®Á㤽#Yþà‰ý—º—•´ý:.@®†_•þdŒ7¤¶ÂΖP©=–d1%Y³…Õ½~ÍþräÆSÎÒ*t6>CÁ/]S¯Sgø—FdsQóàu…L[„”KÕ#®Òà£Ôw“ßhÇoë4`cv~ªÊ´ |ðØ§‰Ž(Hpõگ꾵ÄW6`¾.•*¾· g²/°¯ÒÔ #!šUN» %  0(7w@74w‹š mœ˜Q_GRHL_7W14_HP4SI,ü,,,,,ü0xÈhH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ‰DŠ‹UŒÀÀŽ£{‘’£{Sx$˜s‡‚‚3|x’ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñŽñÓ  ÓñŽññŒñÔ€è[çXXÔñŒññ‹ññ‹ññŽññŽññ‹ññ‹ñññ(ññññññtññññññTñññ‘ñext€by€Lisa€Cozzens,€lcozzens@brown.edu)ñ‘ññ‹ñÌÌñ‹ñññÔ‡è[çXXÔñññ’ñÓ  Óñ’ñDred€Scott€vs.€SandfordññÔ#†Xz¶Xçè[æ#ÔññÐ à ÐñŽñÓ  ÓñŽññŒñÔ€Xz¶Xçè[ÔñŒññ’ñÓÓñ’ñÌÔ€¼ÎÌ»XXz¶Ôò òBackgroundÔ‡Xz¶X»¼ÎÌÔó óÐ  ` ÐÔ#†¼ÎÌ»XXz¶ÿ#ÔÔ‡Xz¶X»¼ÎÌÔ€€€€€"Slavery€is€founded€on€the€selfishness€of€man's€nature--opposition€to€it€on€his€love€of€justice.Ð ( x ÐThese€principles€are€in€eternal€antagonism;€and€when€brought€into€collision€so€fiercely€as€slaveryÏextension€brings€them,€shocks€and€throes€and€convulsions€must€ceaselessly€follow."€(AbrahamÏLincoln)Ì€€€€€During€the€1850's€in€the€United€States,€Southern€support€of€slavery€and€Northern€oppositionÏto€it€collided€more€violently€than€ever€before€over€the€case€of€Dred€Scott,€a€black€slave€fromÏMissouri€who€claimed€his€freedom€on€the€basis€of€seven€years€of€residence€in€a€free€state€and€aÏfree€territory.€When€the€predominately€proslavery€Supreme€Court€of€the€United€States€heardÏScott's€case€and€declared€that€not€only€was€he€still€a€slave€but€that€the€main€law€guaranteeing€thatÌslavery€would€not€enter€the€new€midwestern€territories€of€the€United€States€was€unconstitutional,Ïit€sent€America€into€convulsions.€The€turmoil€would€end€only€after€a€long€and€bloody€civil€warÏfought€primarily€over€the€issue€of€slavery€and€its€extension€into€America's€unorganizedÏterritories.€The€Supreme€Court's€ruling€in€Dred€Scott€v.€Sandford€helped€hasten€the€arrival€of€theÏAmerican€Civil€War,€primarily€by€further€polarizing€the€already€tense€relations€betweenÏNortherners€and€Southerners.Ì€€€€€America€in€1857€was,€as€Kenneth€Stampp€put€it,€"a€Nation€on€the€Brink."€RelationshipsÏbetween€the€Northern€and€Southern€states€had€been€strained€for€decades,€but€during€the€1840'sÏand€especially€the€1850's,€the€situation€exploded.€The€Compromise€of€1850€served€as€a€clearÏwarning€that€the€slavery€issue,€relatively€dormant€since€the€Missouri€Compromise€of€1820,€hadÏreturned.€As€territories€carved€out€of€the€Mexican€cessions€of€1848€applied€for€statehood,€theyÏstirred€a€passionate€and€often€violent€debate€over€the€expansion€of€the€South's€"peculiarÏinstitution."€Proslavery€and€antislavery€forces€clashed€frequently€and€fatally€in€"BleedingÏKansas,"€while€the€presidential€election€of€1856€turned€ugly€when€southern€states€threatenedÏsecession€if€a€candidate€from€the€antislavery€Republican€party€won.€Into€this€charged€atmosphereÏstepped€a€black€slave€from€Missouri€named€Dred€Scott.Ì€€€€€Scott's€beginnings€were€quite€humble.€Born€somewhere€in€Virginia,€he€moved€to€St.€Louis,ÏMissouri,€with€his€owners€in€1830€and€was€sold€to€Dr.€John€Emerson€sometime€between€1831Ïand€1833.€Emerson,€as€an€Army€doctor,€was€a€frequent€traveler,€so€between€his€sale€to€EmersonÏand€Emerson's€death€in€late€1843,€Scott€lived€for€extended€periods€of€time€in€Fort€Armstrong,ÏIllinois,€Fort€Snelling,€Wisconsin€Territory,€Fort€Jessup,€Louisiana,€and€in€St.€Louis.€During€hisÏtravels,€Scott€lived€for€a€total€of€seven€years€in€areas€closed€to€slavery;€Illinois€was€a€free€stateÏand€the€Missouri€Compromise€of€1820€had€closed€the€Wisconsin€Territory€to€slavery.€WhenÏScott's€decade-long€fight€for€freedom€began€on€April€6,€1846,€he€lived€in€St.€Louis€and€was€theÏproperty€of€Emerson's€wife.Ì€€€€€The€famous€Scott€v.€Sandford€case,€like€its€plaintiff,€had€relatively€insignificant€origins.€ScottÏfiled€a€declaration€on€April€6,€1846,€stating€that€on€April€4,€Mrs.€Emerson€had€"beat,€bruised,€andÏill-treated€him"€before€imprisoning€him€for€twelve€hours.€Scott€also€declared€that€he€was€free€byÏvirtue€of€his€residence€at€Fort€Armstrong€and€Fort€Snelling.€He€had€strong€legal€backing€for€thisÏdeclaration;€the€Supreme€Court€of€Missouri€had€freed€many€slaves€who€had€traveled€with€theirÐ È-)+ Ðmasters€in€free€states.€In€the€Missouri€Supreme€Court's€1836€Rachel€v.€Walker€ruling,€it€decidedÏthat€Rachel,€a€slave€taken€to€Fort€Snelling€and€to€Prairie€du€Chien€in€Illinois,€was€free.€DespiteÐ È-)+ Ðthese€precedents,€Mrs.€Emerson€won€the€first€Scott€v.Emerson€trial€by€slipping€through€aÏtechnical€loophole;€Scott€took€the€second€trial€by€closing€the€loophole.€In€1850,€the€caseÌreached€the€Missouri€Supreme€Court,€the€same€court€that€had€freed€Rachel€just€fourteen€yearsÏearlier.€Unfortunately€for€Scott,€the€intervening€fourteen€years€had€been€important€ones€in€termsÏof€sectional€conflict.€The€precedents€in€his€favor€were€the€work€of€"liberal-minded€judges€whoÏwere€predisposed€to€favor€freedom€and€whose€opinions€seemed€to€reflect€the€older€view€ofÏenlightened€southerners€that€slavery€was,€at€best,€a€necessary€evil."€By€the€early€1850's,€however,Ïsectional€conflict€had€arisen€again€and€uglier€than€ever,€and€most€Missourians€did€not€encourageÏthe€freeing€of€slaves.€Even€judicially€Scott€was€at€a€disadvantage;€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt's€Strader€v.€Graham€decision€(1851)€set€some€precedents€that€were€unfavorable€to€Scott,Ïand€two€of€the€three€justices€who€made€the€final€decision€in€Scott's€appearance€before€theÏMissouri€Supreme€Court€were€proslavery.€As€would€be€expected,€they€ruled€against€Scott€inÏ1852,€with€the€third€judge€dissenting.€Scott's€next€step€was€to€take€his€case€out€of€the€stateÏjudicial€system€and€into€the€federal€judicial€system€by€bringing€it€to€the€U.S.€Circuit€Court€for€theÏDistrict€of€Missouri.€ÌÌÌò òÔ#†¼ÎÌ»XXz¶$#ÔCase€in€Federal€CourtÔ‡Xz¶X»¼ÎÌÔó óÐ  ð Ðà  àIn€entering€the€federal€judicial€system,€the€Scott€case€underwent€a€metamorphosis€thatÏwould€prove€to€be€very€important€at€the€conclusion€of€the€case.€Most€evident€was€the€change€inÏthe€defendant.€Mrs.€Emerson€had€moved€to€Massachusetts€and€remarried,€leaving€Scott€and€hisÏcase€to€her€brother,€John€F.A.€Sanford,€still€living€in€St.€Louis.€Also,€theScott€v.€Emerson€case€inÏthe€state€judicial€system€was€clearly€a€genuine€suit€between€two€parties;€each€side's€purpose€wasÌto€win€the€case.€The€same€cannot€be€said€of€Scott€v.€Sandford.€"Dred€Scott€v.€Sandford,"€wroteÏDon€Fehrenbacher,€"was€either€a€genuine€suit,€or€a€counterfeit€designed€for€abolitionist€purposes,Ïor€part€of€a€proslavery€plot€that€succeeded."€This€uncertainty€over€the€true€purpose€of€the€caseÏlater€made€Republican€charges€that€the€case€was€a€conspiracy€designed€to€help€the€expansion€ofÏslavery€even€easier€to€believe.Ì€€€€€Whatever€the€true€intents€of€the€two€parties€were,€they€met€in€1854€in€the€United€StatesÏCircuit€Court.€Judge€Robert€W.€Wells,€"a€slaveholder€who€nevertheless€regarded€slavery€as€aÏbarrier€to€progress,"€presided€over€the€trial.€Sanford's€first€strategy€was€to€prove€that€Scott€wasÏnot€a€citizen€of€Missouri€because€he€was€the€descendant€of€African€slaves,€but€Wells€ruled€thatÏbecause€he€resided€in€Missouri,€Scott€was€enough€of€a€citizen€to€be€able€to€bring€suit€in€a€federalÏcourt.€Sanford€then€used€the€same€line€of€reasoning€that€had€worked€in€front€of€the€MissouriÏSupreme€Court,€arguing€that€even€if€Scott€had€gained€his€freedom€while€residing€in€Illinois,€heÏhad€regained€his€slave€status€upon€returning€to€Missouri.€This€defense€proved€successful€onceÏagain,€and€the€jury€decided€in€favor€of€Sanford.Ì€€€€€The€next€step€for€Scott€was€to€take€his€case€to€the€highest€tribunal€in€the€country,€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court.€Before€he€did€so,€however,€he€needed€to€find€a€suitable€attorney.ÏFortunately,€Montgomery€Blair--a€Missourian€himself,€a€highly€respected€lawyer€in€Washington,Ïand€a€supporter€of€the€Free€Soil€party--agreed€to€take€Scott's€case€without€expecting€payment.ÏThe€Supreme€Court€first€heard€the€case€of€Scott€v.€Sandford€in€early€1856,€but€ordered€aÏreargument€for€the€next€term,€perhaps€because€a€decision€would€have€come€on€the€eve€of€theÏ1856€presidential€election€and€would€have€forced€each€candidate€to€agree€or€disagree€with€theÐ (-x(+ ÐCourt€on€a€highly€volatile€issue.€This€would€not€be€the€last€time€politics€intruded€on€the€DredÏScott€case.Ì€€€€€Until€it€came€before€the€Supreme€Court,€Scott's€case€had€not€attracted€much€attention,€eitherÏpublic€or€within€the€other€branches€of€government.€By€early€1856,€however,€Congress€hadÏrenewed€the€debate€over€Congressional€power€toregulate€slavery€in€the€territories€in€light€of€theÏbloody€conflicts€in€Kansas.€Both€sides€began€to€view€the€issue€as€a€decision€for€the€SupremeÏCourt,€and€not€for€Congress,€to€make.€As€Senator€Albert€G.€Brown,€a€Democrat€fromÏMississippi,€said€on€July€2,€1856:Ì€€€€€My€friend€from€Michigan€[Senator€Lewis€Cass]€and€myself€differ€very€widely€as€to€what€areÏthe€powers€of€a€Territorial€Legislature€-€he€believing€that€they€can€exercise€sovereign€rights,€and€IÏbelieving€no€such€thing;€he€contending€that€they€have€a€right€to€exclude€slavery,€and€I€notÏadmitting€the€proposition;€but€both€of€us€concurring€in€the€opinion€that€it€is€a€question€to€beÏdecided€by€the€courts,€and€not€by€Congress.ÌÌA€few€weeks€later,€Abraham€Lincoln,€a€Republican€from€Illinois€agreed:€Ì€€€€€ð ðI€grant€you€that€an€unconstitutional€act€is€not€a€law;€but€I€do€not€ask,€and€will€not€take€yourÐ À Ѐ€€€€[Democrats']€construction€of€the€Constitution.€The€Supreme€Court€of€the€United€States€is€the€€€Ï€€€tribunal€to€decide€such€questions,€and€we€will€submit€to€its€decisions;€and€if€you€do€also,€there€€€Ï€€will€be€an€end€of€the€matter.ððÐ à ÐÌ€€€€€"When€reargument€[of€the€case]€before€the€Court€began€on€December€15,"€wrote€KennethÏStampp,€"the€potentially€broad€political€significance€of€the€case€had€become€evident,€and€publicÏinterest€in€it€had€increased€considerably."€Indeed,€"by€Christmas€1856,€Dred€Scott's€name€wasÏprobably€familiar€to€most€Americans€who€followed€the€course€of€national€affairs."€€ÌÌò òÔ#†¼ÎÌ»XXz¶"#ÔCourtððs€DecisionÔ‡Xz¶X»¼ÎÌÔó óÐ  p ÐWhen€the€Court€met€for€the€first€time€since€the€reargument€to€discuss€the€case€on€February€14,Ï1857,€it€favored€a€moderate€decision€that€ruled€in€favor€of€Sanford€but€did€not€consider€the€largerÏissues€of€Negro€citizenship€and€the€constitutionality€of€the€Missouri€Compromise.€The€majorityÏchose€Justice€Nelson€as€the€writer€of€a€decision€that€avoided€these€important€but€highlyÏcontroversial€issues,€and€Nelson€went€to€work€on€it.€When€Nelson€presented€his€opinion€to€theÌmajority,€however,€he€discovered€that€his€"majority"€opinion€turned€out€to€be€the€opinion€of€onlyÏhimself.€The€Court€elected€to€throw€out€Nelson's€decision€and€instead€chose€Chief€Justice€RogerÏB.€Taney€as€the€writer€of€the€true€majority€opinion€for€the€court,€an€opinion€that€would€includeÏeverything€under€consideration€in€the€case,€including€Negro€citizenship€and€the€constitutionalityÏof€the€Missouri€Compromise.€According€to€Justice€Catron,€one€of€the€members€of€the€majority,Ï"the€court€majority.€.€.had€been€orced€up'€to€its€change€of€plan€by€the€determination€of€[Justices]ÏCurtis€and€McLean€to€present€extensive€dissenting€opinions€discussing€all€aspects€of€the€case."ÏThe€majority€decided€that€if€the€dissenters€covered€all€the€issues,€they€must€also.€Ironically,€theÏtwo€most€antislavery€justices€may€have€forced€a€more€proslavery€opinion€than€what€theÌmajority€originally€planned€to€decide.Ì€€€€€By€mid-February€1857,€many€well-informed€Americans€were€aware€that€the€conclusion€of€theÏScott€v.€Sandford€case€was€close€at€hand.€President-elect€James€Buchanan€contacted€some€of€hisÏfriends€on€the€Supreme€Court€starting€in€early€February;€he€asked€if€the€Court€had€reached€aÐ (-x(+ Ðdecision€in€the€case,€for€he€needed€to€know€what€he€should€say€about€the€territorial€issue€in€hisÏinaugural€address€on€March€4.€By€inauguration€day€1857,€Buchanan€knew€what€the€outcome€ofÏthe€Supreme€Court's€decision€would€be€and€took€the€opportunity€to€throw€his€support€to€theÏCourt€in€his€inaugural€address:ÌÌ€€€€€A€difference€of€opinion€has€arisen€in€regard€to€the€point€of€time€when€the€people€of€a€TerritoryÏshall€decide€this€question€[of€slavery]€for€themselves.Ì€€€€€This€is,€happily,€a€matter€of€but€little€practical€importance.€Besides,€it€is€a€judicial€question,Ïwhich€legitimately€belongs€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€the€United€States,€before€whom€it€is€nowÏpending,€and€will,€it€is€understood,€be€speedily€and€finally€settled.€To€their€decision,€in€commonÏwith€all€good€citizens,€I€shall€cheerfully€submit,€whatever€this€may€be.ÌÌ€€€€€Just€two€days€after€Buchanan's€inauguration,€on€March€6,€1857,€the€nine€justices€filed€into€theÏcourtroom€in€the€basement€of€the€U.S.€Capitol,€lead€by€Chief€Justice€Taney.€Taney€was€almostÏ80€years€old,€always€physically€feeble,€and€even€weaker€as€a€result€of€the€effort€he€had€put€forthÏto€write€the€two-hour-long€opinion;€therefore,€he€spoke€in€a€low€voicethat€Republicans€deemedÏappropriate€for€such€a€"shameful€decision."€He€first€addressed€the€question€of€Negro€citizenship,Ìnot€only€that€of€slaves€but€also€that€of€free€blacks:ÌÌ€€€€€Can€a€Negro,€whose€ancestors€were€imported€into€this€country,€and€sold€as€slaves,€become€aÏmember€of€the€political€community€formed€and€brought€into€existence€by€the€Constitution€of€theÏUnited€States,€and€as€such€become€entitled€to€all€the€rights,€and€privileges,€and€immunities,Ïguaranteed€by€that€instrument€to€the€citizen?[15]ÌÌ€€€€€One€of€the€privileges€reserved€for€citizens€by€the€Constitution,€argued€Taney,€was€theÏ"privilege€of€suing€in€a€court€of€the€United€States€in€the€cases€specified€by€the€Constitution."[16]ÏTaney's€opinion€stated€that€Negroes,€even€free€Negroes,€were€not€citizens€of€the€United€States,Ïand€that€therefore€Scott,€as€a€Negro,€did€not€even€have€the€privilege€of€being€able€to€sue€in€aÏfederal€court.€Taney€then€turned€to€the€question€of€the€constitutionality€of€the€MissouriÏCompromise.€The€territoriesacquired€from€France€in€the€Louisiana€Purchase€of€1803,€TaneyÏstated,€were€dependent€upon€the€national€government,€and€the€government€could€not€act€outsideÏits€framework€as€set€forth€in€the€Constitution.€Congress,€for€example,€could€not€deny€the€citizensÏof€the€new€territory€freedom€of€speech.€Similarly,€Congress€could€not€deprive€the€citizens€of€theÏterritory€of€"life,€liberty,€or€property€without€due€process€of€law,"€according€to€the€FifthÏAmendment.€Taney€continued:€ÌÌ€€€€€And€an€act€of€Congress€which€deprives€a€citizen€of€the€United€States€of€his€liberty€orÏproperty,€merely€because€he€came€himself€or€brought€his€property€into€a€particular€territory€of€theÏUnited€States,€and€who€had€committed€no€offense€against€the€laws,€could€hardly€be€dignifiedÏwith€the€name€of€due€process€of€law.ÌÌ€€€€€The€Constitution€made€no€distinction€between€slaves€and€other€types€of€property.€TaneyÏreasoned€that€the€Missouri€Compromise€deprived€slaveholding€citizens€of€their€property€in€theÏform€of€slaves€and€that€therefore€the€Missouri€Compromise€was€unconstitutional.€Scott's€case€hadÏone€last€hope:€the€Chief€Justice€could€decide€that€Scott€was€free€because€of€his€stay€in€the€freeÐ ð-@), Ðstate€of€Illinois.€Taney€made€no€such€decision,€instead€stating€that€"the€status€of€slaves€whoÌhad€been€taken€to€free€States€or€territories€and€who€had€afterwards€returned€depended€on€the€lawÏof€the€State€where€they€resided€when€they€brought€suit."€Scott€had€brought€suit€in€Missouri€andÏhence€he€was€still€a€slave€because€Missouri€was€aslave€state.€Taney€ruled€that€the€case€beÏdismissed€for€lack€of€jurisdiction€and€sent€back€to€the€lower€court€with€instructions€for€that€courtÏto€dismiss€the€case€for€the€same€reason,€therefore€upholding€the€Missouri€Supreme€Court's€rulingÏin€favor€of€Sanford.€ÌÌÌÔ#†¼ÎÌ»XXz¶)&#Ôò òDissenting€Opinionsó óÔ‡Xz¶X»¼ÎÌÔÐ  p  ÐThe€next€day,€Justices€McLean€and€Curtis€read€their€dissenting€opinions,€both€of€which€ruled€inÏfavor€of€Scott.€They€immediately€released€the€text€of€their€decisions€for€publication€in€print,€butÏTaney€withheld€his€for€revising€until€late€May;€the€only€record€the€public€had€of€the€majorityÏopinion€was€a€short€Associated€Press€article.€This€gave€the€Republicans€a€decided€advantage€overÏthe€Democrats€in€the€"war€of€words,"€because€the€Republicans€had€the€full€text€of€the€twoÏpro-Scott€dissents,€while€the€Democrats€had€to€rely€on€simply€a€paragraph€not€even€written€byÏone€of€the€Court's€justices.€The"Republican€assault"€began€as€early€as€March€7,€the€day€afterÏTaney€read€the€majority€opinion,€when€the€New€York€Tribune€pronounced€that€"The€decision,€weÏneed€hardly€say,€is€entitled€to€just€as€much€moral€weight€as€would€be€the€judgment€of€a€majorityÏof€those€congregated€in€any€Washington€bar-room."€The€Chicago€Tribune€added€on€March€12:Ì€€€€€We€must€confess€we€are€shocked€at€the€violence€and€servility€of€the€Judicial€RevolutionÏcaused€by€the€decision€of€the€Supreme€Court€of€the€United€States.€We€scarcely€know€how€toÏexpress€our€detestation€of€its€inhuman€dicta€or€fathom€the€wicked€consequences€which€may€flowÏfrom€it€.€.€.€.€To€say€or€€suppose,€that€a€Free€People€can€respect€or€will€obey€a€decision€so€fraughtÏwith€disastrous€consequences€to€the€People€and€their€Liberties,€is€to€dream€of€impossibilities.Ì€€€€€Democratic€newspapers€were€as€quick€to€defend€the€decision€as€Republicans€were€to€assaultÏit.€On€March€12,€the€(Washington€DC)€Daily€Union€urged€the€country€to€respect€the€decision€andÏunite€under€it:ÌÌ€€€€€We€cherish€a€most€ardent€and€confident€expectation€that€this€decision€will€meet€a€properÏreception€from€the€great€mass€of€our€intelligent€countrymen;€that€it€will€be€regarded€withÏsoberness€and€not€with€€passion;€and€that€it€will€thereby€exert€a€mighty€influence€in€diffusingÏsound€opinions€and€restoring€€harmony€and€fraternal€concord€throughout€the€country€.€.€.€.€ItÏwould€be€fortunate,€indeed,€if€the€opinion€of€that€court€on€this€important€subject€could€receive€theÏcandid€and€respectful€acquiescence€which€it€merits.ÌÌ€€€€€The€Cincinnati€Daily€Enquirer€of€March€8€was€not€as€optimistic€about€how€the€antislaveryÏpublic€would€receive€the€decision:ÌÌ€€€€€While€thus€anticipating€a€general€acquiescence€in€the€decision€of€the€Supreme€Court,€it€wouldÏbe€too€€much€to€expect€that€it€will€escape€attack€and€censure€from€disappointed€and€embitteredÏpartisans,€€whose€political€capital€and€hope€of€office€will€wither€before€it.ÌÌ€€€€€Ð (-x(+ Ðà  àThe€withholding€of€Taney's€decision€created€two€major€other€problems.€First,€it€created€aÏschism€between€Taney€and€Justice€Curtis,€one€of€the€dissenters.€Curtis€had€the€misfortune€ofÏbeing€one€of€the€youngest€members€of€the€Court,€as€well€as€a€native€of€Massachusetts,€a€stateÏTaney€detested€because€it€epitomized€Northern€hypocrisy€over€the€issue€of€slavery.€CurtisÌfurther€angered€Taney€by€requesting€to€see€his€majority€decision€as€soon€as€he€released€it.€CurtisÏwanted€to€see€the€text€of€Taney's€majority€opinion€because€many€parts€of€his€dissent€tied€into€it.ÏDuring€the€spring€and€the€summer€of€1857,€Curtis€and€Taney€exchanged€angry€letters,€and€byÏSeptember€Curtis€found€the€situation€so€uncomfortable€that€he€handed€in€his€resignation€from€theÏCourt.€The€second€problem€that€the€withholding€of€Taney's€decision€produced€was€that€when€heÌreleased€it,€he€had€obviously€added€parts€that€were€direct€replies€to€the€dissents€of€McLean€andÏCurtis.€Curtis€estimated€that€Taney€had€appended€"upwards€of€eighteen€pages"€since€he€had€readÏthe€decision€in€court€and€added€that€"No€one€can€read€them€without€perceiving€that€they€are€inÏreply€to€my€opinion."€Relationships€between€Northerners€and€Southerners€werealready€tense,€butÏthe€withholding€of€Taney's€opinion€served€to€further€polarize€the€two€sides.ÌÌ€€€€€Many€northerners€felt€that€parts€of€Taney's€decision,€specifically€the€invalidation€of€theÏMissouri€Compromise€on€constitutional€grounds,€were€extrajudicial€because€they€were€notÏnecessary€for€arriving€at€a€decision€in€the€case.€They€charged€that€after€Taney€had€shown€thatÏScott,€as€a€Negro,€had€no€right€to€bring€a€case€into€a€federal€court,€he€should€haveÌended€his€decision,€instead€of€going€on€to€declare€that€the€Missouri€Compromise€wasÏunconstitutional.€Taney€defended€his€decision€by€saying€that€the€Supreme€Court€had€the€right€toÏcorrect€all€the€errors€committed€during€the€Circuit€Court€trial,€including€the€constitutionality€ofÏthe€Missouri€Compromise€and€the€question€of€Negro€citizenship:ÌÌ€€€€€It€has€been€said,€that€as€this€court€has€decided€against€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Circuit€Court€onÏthe€plea€in€abatement€[which€decided€whether€or€not€the€Court€would€consider€the€question€ofÏScott's€citizenship],€it€has€no€right€to€examine€any€question€presented€by€the€exception;€and€thatÏanything€it€€may€say€upon€that€part€of€the€case€will€be€extra-judicial,€and€mere€obiter€dicta.ÌÌ€€€€€This€is€a€manifest€mistake;€there€can€be€not€doubt€as€to€the€jurisdiction€of€this€court€to€reviseÏthe€judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court,€and€to€reverse€it€for€any€error€apparent€on€the€record,€whetherÏit€be€the€€error€of€giving€judgment€in€a€case€over€which€it€had€no€jurisdiction,€or€any€otherÏmaterial€error;€and€€this,€too,€whether€there€is€a€plea€in€abatement€or€not.ÌÌ€€€€€This€explanation€was€not€satisfactory€for€many€northerners,€who€became€angry€becauseÏTaney,€by€extending€his€opinion€to€include€issues€that€did€not€have€much€of€a€bearing€on€theÏcase,€had€unjustly€set€new€precedents.€Southerners,€of€course,€stood€firmly€by€the€decision€of€theÏCourt,€refusing€to€concede€that€any€part€of€Taney's€decision€had€been€extrajudicial.€ThisÏdisagreement€led€to€further€division€between€North€and€South.ÌÌ€€€€€The€decision€placed€the€anti-slavery€Republicans€in€a€very€difficult€situation.€They€had€theÏchoice€of€either€agreeing€to€honor€the€decision,€implying€an€acceptance€of€slavery,€or€refusing€toÏrespect€it,€which€would€go€against€the€Constitution's€definition€of€Supreme€Court's€decisions€asÏthe€"law€of€the€land."€Not€surprisingly,€Republicans€found€ways€to€discount€the€opinion€withoutÏdisrespecting€it€outright,€usually€by€reasoning€that€the€declaration€of€the€unconstitutionality€ofÐ ð-@), Ðthe€Missouri€Compromise€was€not€law.€One€of€their€main€arguments€was€that€after€Taney,Ïspeaking€for€the€Court's€majority,€had€decided€that€Scott€was€not€a€citizen€and€therefore€did€notÏhave€the€right€to€be€in€a€federal€court,€anything€else€he€said€was€obiter€dictum€and€therefore€notÏlaw.€Although€this€conceded€the€Democrats€a€small€victory€in€upholding€the€non-citizenship€ofÌNegroes,€this€argument€threw€out€the€Court's€ruling€that€the€Missouri€Compromise€wasÏunconstitutional,€a€major€victory€for€the€Republicans.€One€writer€of€the€time€declared€that€"theÏmembers€of€the€most€ultra€school€of€that€[Republican]€party€.€.€.€admit,€that€the€question€of€theÏcitizenship€of€persons€of€African€descent€was€the€only€question€authoritatively€decided,€in€theÌcase€of€Scott."€Following€a€similar€line€of€reasoning,€Republicans€also€argued€that€a€judicialÏmajority€had€not€decided€on€the€unconstitutionality€of€the€Missouri€Compromise€and€thatÏtherefore€it€was€not€law.€George€Curtis,€one€of€Scott's€attorneys,Ìargued€that:ÌÌ€€€€€.€.€.€it€appears€that€six€of€the€nine€judges€expressed€the€opinion€that€the€[Missouri]ÏCompromise€Act€€was€unconstitutional.€But,€in€order€to€determine€whether€this€concurrence€ofÏsix€in€that€opinion€€constitutes€a€judicial€decision€or€precedent,€it€is€necessary€to€see€how€theÏmajority€is€formed€.€.€.€.€If€.€.€.€€the€judicial€function€of€each€judge€who€held€that€the€Circuit€CourtÏwas€without€jurisdiction€[because€€Scott,€as€a€Negro,€was€could€not€be€a€citizen€of€the€UnitedÏStates]€.€.€.€was€discharged€as€soon€as€he€had€announced€that€conclusion,€and€given€his€voice€forÏa€dismissal€of€the€case€on€that€grounds,€then€all€€that€he€said€on€the€question€involved€in€theÏmerits€was€extrajudicial,€and€the€so-called€"decision"€is€no€€precedent.ÌÌ€€€€€Republicans€also€attempted€to€portray€the€decision€as€a€proslavery€conspiracy,€one€thatÏincluded€members€of€the€Supreme€Court.€J.T.€Brooke€noted€in€his€analysis€of€the€case€that€"it€hasÏbeen€repeatedly€alleged€that€the€Dred€Scott€€decision€was€a€ot-up€case,'€contrived€by€interestedÏpoliticians€to€secure€a€judicial€decision€of€a€political€question."€Many€Republicans€noticed€a€briefÏintercourse€at€Buchanan's€inauguration€between€the€President€and€the€Chief€Justice,€whoÏadministered€the€oath€of€office,€and€took€that€as€a€sign€of€a€conspiracy€between€the€executive€andÏjudicial€branches.€Senator€William€H.€Seward,€a€New€York€Republican,€noted€in€a€widelyÏdistributed€speech€that€Scott€"had€played€the€hand€of€a€dummy€in€this€interesting€political€game."ÏSenator€William€Pitt€Fessenden,€a€Republican€from€Maine,€declared€that:ÌÌ€€€€€.€.€.€what€I€consider€this€original€scheme€to€have€been,€was€to€assert€popularÔ#†¼ÎÌ»XXz¶Û<#Ô€Ô‡Xz¶X»¼ÎÌÔsovereignty€in€theÐ °"  ÐfirstññÌ€€€ññ€€place€with€a€view€of€rendering€the€repeal€of€the€Missouri€compromise€in€some€wayÏpalatable;€then€toñ‚ñÌ€€€€ñ‚ññƒñ€ñƒñ€deny€it€and€avow€the€establishment€of€slavery;€then€to€legalize€this€by€aÏdecision€of€the€Supreme€Courtñ„ñÌ€€€ñ„ñ€€of€the€United€States,€and€claim€that€it€had€become€established.€IÏsincerely€believe€that€decision€of€theñ…ñÌ€€€€ñ…ññ†ñ€ñ†ñ€Supreme€Court€of€the€United€States€was€a€part€of€theÏprogramme.ÌÌ€€€€€Some€more€radical€Republicans€simply€invalidated€the€entire€decision.€One€writer€went€so€farÏas€to€say€after€the€caseñ‡ñÌñ‡ññˆñ€ñˆñhad€been€decided€that€the€question€of€Negro€citizenship€"never€has€beenÏjudicially€decided€by€any€court€of€competentñ‰ñÌñ‰ññŠñ€ñŠñjurisdiction."€Statements€such€as€this,€however,Ïgenerally€"surprise[d]€even€Republicans."€Ô#†¼ÎÌ»XXz¶b`#Ô