What were the peoples reaction about dred Scott's decision?

Question

I need help!!
When Dred scott made his decision what were the peoples reaction to his decision?

Answer 1

I think you are a bit confused. It is not a decision made BY Dred Scott, but a Supreme Court decision made about a case brought to them BY Dred Scott, a slave who claimed he should be free because his master had taken him to live for a time in free territory.

The court said "No!" In fact, they said that, as a black, he could not even be a U.S. citizen, and so had no right to even bring this court case to them! But they ruled on it anyway, in a decision that went so far as to say that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, that is, that Congress did not have the authority to bar slavery from a territory.

As for reaction

First, note that saying Congress could not bar slavery from the territories amounted to saying that one of the DEFINING positions of the Republican Party (against the extension of slavery into the territories) contradicted the Constitution.

Republicans were, of course, quite distressed, seeing this as meaning they COULD not prevent the spread of slavery. More than that, they feared the Court would soon, by the same logic, find it impossible for any STATE to bar slavery in its own midst. (At the same time, they argued that, since the court's decision had begun by saying Scott had no "standing" to bring the case, that anything they said AFTER that was not binding, because these other things were not needed to come to that basic decision.)

That LAST concern -- that the Court would soon force ALL states to be "slave states"-- became a concern of MANY in the North, not just Republicans. (In other words, though these people might "not care" about whether slavery still existed, they DID care about what might happen in their own communities!)

Northern Democrats felt squeezed. Their most prominent leader, Stephen Douglas, tried to argue (in his "Freeport Doctrine") that it would still be possible for new states to effectively keep slavery out by not offering it protections (e.g., police)

On the other side, there was a small group of ardent pro-slavery Southern Democrats, who believed it would be a GOOD thing for there to be NO limits on where masters could take slaves, and that the Court SHOULD do so.

The rest of the South was not so extreme. Many believed it "vindicated" them against the Northern abolitionists (esp. "black Republicans"), and thought (at first) that this would nicely settle the whole matter. . . that the anti-slavery "agitation" from these abolitionists could be stopped.


A couple of places to start:
http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/scott/republicanreaction.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford#Reaction

Answer 2

The Dred Scott Decission meant triumph for both parties in the debate on the slavery issue. For those opposed to Slavery the decission was proof that the courts were corrupt and unwilling to confront the central issue - - - - were 'blacks' people or were they property. The Court kept dodging the issue by referring to slaves as property. Those in favor of Slavery wishing to see it remain legal, they applauded the Courts for 'rightfully' viewing the matter as a property matter, and were happy that the Courtrs had the wisdom to see that the status quo did not meet with woe.

Peace///////////////////////]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Answer 3

Depends which side of the slavery issue the people were on.
People against slavery were very unhappy about the decision.
Those who supported slavery were elated. Those who didn't care one way or the other couldn't care less.

Answer 4

They dreaded it, of course!