Dred Scott case protecting and denying state's rights With tensions at an unprecedented level and the nation at a potential breaking point, the decision in the he Dred Scott affair came as a surprise to both North and South. The decision has dramatic consequences, the principles of the South are validated while the freedoms of the North are threatened. So it's no surprise that the New York Herald and the Charleston Mercury have very different viewpoints and reporting styles. The Northern newspaper considered the impact of the decision to have "huge consequences". The article explained how the Supreme Court's decision dismantled the rights of Northern states and threatened their freedoms and constitutions. While the southern newspaper considered the decision a "triumph" for Southern rights, probably because it granted and validated property rights and limited Congressional policy debate on slavery. The federal government could no longer interfere in state affairs and ended the need for compromise between anti-slavery and pro-slavery states. Although the North and South had very different views on the impact of the decision, one thing was clear: The decision did not mark the end of turmoil between the anti-slavery and pro-slavery states. The political turmoil preceding the Dred Scott case influenced how this dynamic decision was perceived and reported in the New York Herald, "The Decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case, and Its Tremendous Consequences" and in The Charleston Mercury, “The Dred Scott.” Scott Case – The Supreme Court on Southern Rights.” This affair has become another symbol of the turmoil between the two halves of the nation. The sheer impact of one man's legal fight to gain his freedom was felt everywhere. Dred Sco... middle of paper ...... to not be citizens, whether free or slave, many Northern states had to amend their constitutions. States could no longer determine whether their state was free or pro-slavery. The court had made it clear in ruling that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional and that Congress could no longer intervene in determining the owner's ownership. The decision declared any line or distinction between non-slave states and slave states null and void, at least officially. There was so much tension, questions, debate, anger and confusion among citizens, workers, states and Congress. It is therefore not surprising that journalists and newspapers were drawn into the debates and allowed their political or personal biases to be reflected in these reports. One thing was clear and both reports accurately predicted the turmoil that would ensue over slavery in the country..