Assessing Response Of Northern Opinion To The Dred Scott Decision

With reference to the sources and your understanding of the historical context, which of these two sources is more valuable in assessing the response of northern opinion to the Dred Scott decision?

The argument of Extract 1 is that the Dred Scott decision was constitutional, Unionist and fully ‘rebuked’ Northern abolitionism. Although this Extract is of some value, this value is significantly limited in terms of assessing the response of northern opinion to the Dred Scott decision.

The Richmond Enquirer notes that the question of slavery had been ‘decided emphatically.’ There is much that is accurate in this statement as the term ‘emphatically’ correctly illustrates the legal finality of the Dred Scott decision. This is because the Supreme

The author’s conviction that ‘northern sectionalism’ and abolitionist sentiment had been ‘rebuked’ and ‘stunned’ is at considerable odds with the substantial abolitionist media retaliation that emerged very rapidly in the North and augmented northern sectionalism. On March 19th 1857, the Chicago Daily Tribune emerged with an impassioned article, which talked of the decision being ‘the first step in a revolution that… threatened to nullify the Revolution of ’76 and make us all slaves again.’ Extract 2 itself, taken from the Northern newspaper, ‘The Albany Evening Journal’ and published just five days after the verdict, makes a similarly impassioned rant denouncing the decision in order to ‘rescue the administration… from Slavery.’ The colossal volume of Northern reactionary material that emerged immediately after the decision indicates that Extract 1‘s claim was inaccurate and calls the value of the Source into question because it demonstrably failed to show an appreciation of true northern opinion towards the Dred Scott decision. Further doubt is cast on the value of Extract 1 because of its inaccurate claim that the decision was ‘made by judges as learned, impartial and unprejudiced as perhaps the world has ever seen.’ This is inconsistent with the views of many Northern politicians. Abraham Lincoln

This argument is in stark opposition with the argument of Extract 1 which argues that the decision was both constitutional and favours the Union. Whilst both extracts agree that ‘Southern rights’ were fully represented in the verdict and that the South gained a ‘great success’ through the decision, Extract 1 notes that this is a victory for the Union, whilst Extract 2 suggests that it was only a success in the eyes of ‘shallow’ Southerners. Extract 2’s interpretation is more accurate than that of Extract 1 because it