Cardozo Law Review
Abstract
The standard account portrays Dred Scott v. Sandford as a story of villains and heroes. The villains are the members of the majority, led by Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, who concluded that descendants of slaves could never become citizens of the Union and that Congress could not outlaw slavery in the territories. The heroes, on the other hand, are the two dissenters, John McLean and Benjamin Robbins Curtis, who rejected these conclusions and determined that Scott should be deemed a free man. McLean's opinion, however, was not tightly reasoned and was rather clearly designed to advance his presidential ambitions; thus, Curtis has been most often portrayed as the embodiment of judicial virtue in Dred Scott.
Keywords
Constitutional Law, Slavery, Race and Ethnicity Issues, Biography, Legal History
Disciplines
Constitutional Law | Law | Law and Race | Legal History
Recommended Citation
Earl M. Maltz,
The Unlikely Hero of Dred Scott: Benjamin Robbins Curtis and the Constitutional Law of Slavery,
17
Cardozo L. Rev.
1995
(1996).
Available at:
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/clr/vol17/iss6/12