Dred Scott v. Sandford
| Quick facts: | |
|---|---|
| Case: | Dred Scott v. Sandford |
| Date: | 1857 |
| Outcome: | Affirmed |
| Ruling: | Dred Scott v. Sandford |
| Author: | Roger Brooke Taney |
| Vote Count: | 7-2 |
| Majority Justices: | NelsonΨWayne, Catron, Daniel, Grier, Campbell |
| Minority Justices: | McLeanŦ, CurtisŦ |
| Court of Origin: | St. Louis Circuit Court |
Ψ-Concurring Opinion Author. Ŧ-Dissenting Opinion Author. | |
Dred Scott v. Sandford is a landmark case announced by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 6, 1857, which ruled that blacks were not United States citizens. As a result, blacks were not afforded government or court protection, and Congress could no longer ban slavery from a federal territory. This decision led to increased tensions, building up to the Civil War. Furthermore, this decision nullified the Missouri Compromise.[1][2]
Following the Civil War, Dred Scott v. Sandford was overturned by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. On May 26, 1857, Dred and Harriet Scott were granted their freedom.[3]
Stakeholders
- Chief Justice: Roger Brooke Taney
- Petitioner: Dred Scott
- A black man born into slavery, but who traveled with his owner into free territory.
- Defendant: Originally Emerson, then Sandford
- Scott originally brought his case against his former owners, the Emersons. However, the Emersons later transferred ownership to Mrs. Emerson's brother, John F. A. Sandford.[4]
Background
Dred Scott was born in the early 19th century in the slave state of Virginia. Scott was originally owned by the Blow family, though later by Dr. John Emerson, an army surgeon. Scott traveled with Emerson as he worked in different military camps, including Fort Armstrong, Ill. This station lasted almost three years, and according to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, this afforded Scott his freedom since slavery was prohibited between the areas of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers and the Great Lakes. The Northwest Ordinance of 1818 also prohibited slavery in the creation of the State of Illinois. However, Scott did not sue at this point or when they moved to Fort Snelling, in the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was prohibited under the 1820 Missouri Compromise.
In 1836 or 1837, Scott married Harriet Robinson, a teenage slave of Major Lawrence Taliaferro. At this time, the ownership of Robinson was transferred to Dr. Emerson. In October of 1837, Emerson was transferred to Fort Snelling in St. Louis, and while he was gone, left the Scotts in the care of another couple to be hired out. Eventually, Emerson, Scott and Robinson ended up back in St. Louis. Emerson died in 1843, leaving the Scotts to his wife.
On April 6, 1846, Dred and Harriet Scott individually filed for their freedom in the St. Louis Circuit Court based on their residence in the free state of Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory. The Scotts used a Missouri statute that stated anyone wrongfully kept in slavery could sue for his/her freedom. According to the statute, they had to begin by filing a petition to sue in the circuit court. A judge would determine if there was enough evidence to suggest that the plaintiff was wrongfully held. If he ruled in the plaintiff’s favor, then the plaintiff could sue. Judge John M. Krum approved the petitions, signed by Dred and Harriet Scott with an "X."[4]
Supreme Court ruling
Arguments
The Scotts argued that when a slave resides in a free state, freedom is entitled to him and cannot be revoked if he returns to a slave state. Also, they argued that Negroes of African descent could be United States citizens.
The defendant challenged the 1820 Missouri Compromise, which would deny Scott's right to freedom.
Decision
On March 6, 1857, the Justices of the Supreme Court ruled 7–2 in favor of Sandford. In the opinion authored by Chief Justice Roger Taney, it was found that Negroes could not be United States citizens and therefore could not bring suits to the Supreme Court. The decision nullified the Missouri Compromise, which had provided a tenuous balance in slave and free states since 1820.
- Concurring Justices: James M. Wayne, John Catron, Peter V. Daniel, Samuel Nelson, Robert C. Grier and John A. Campbell
- Dissenting Justices: John McLean and Benjamin R. Curtis[4]
Reaction
This case was at the center of a political battle when Taney nullified the Missouri Compromise. Though the Chief Justice believed that this decision would end the question of slavery for all time, instead it galvanized both sides. The decision allowed for slavery to grow into new territories. Afterwards, blood was shed over the disagreement on the Missouri-Kansas line. Furthermore, with this controversial decision, the North became increasingly agitated, writing against the decision in their newspapers, preaching sermons denouncing it, and causing the anger to grow beyond just the abolitionist movement. Since the decision allowed for the spread of slavery into previously free states, white laborers could lose their work to slaves. As these tensions grew, the path to the Civil War was being cleared.[4]
Following the decision, New York, Ohio, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania state legislatures tried to pass legislation to oppose the Supreme Court decision. According to the New York Daily Times on June 17, 1857, New Hampshire’s legislation was arguably the most controversial: the legislation sought to give “all races and colors the same rights as white citizens.” Also controversial, Massachusetts legislation sought to create a Supreme Court that more equally represented the North with the South by proposing term limits for justices.[5]
| “ | Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits.... We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.[6] -Abraham Lincoln - June 17, 1858[7] | ” |
| “ | The nation has achieved a triumph, sectionalism has been rebuked, and abolitionism has been staggered and stunned. Another supporting pillar has been added to our institutions; the assailants of the South and enemies of the Union have been driven from their point d'appui...a union saving sentiment has been proclaimed.[8] -Democratic Press - Enquirer - Virginia, March 10, 1857[7] | ” |
| “ | It is simply a demagogical stump speech from the hustings of the supreme bench, got up in legal phrase to suit the necessities of the Buchanan administration. The Judges of the Supreme Court have therein simply abandoned the robe and the ermine to achieve the task of framing a new platform for the locofoco party.[9] -Republican Press - "Gazette" - Pennsylvania, March 7, 1857[7] | ” |
Legacy
This case was overturned with the passage of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.[10]
Legal consequences
Despite the negative decision, legal applications varied. In Chicago, four black men were arrested for stealing poultry. Their attorney argued for their freedom based on the Dred Scott decision, stating that since they were not considered “people,” they could not be imprisoned or tried. In this case, one witness was also black and therefore, refused to testify because he was not considered a person. Other cases were similarly argued.
In another case, Thomas Howland, a black man, applied for a passport. The State Department rejected his application on the basis that he was not a citizen because of his race.[11]
Political consequences
The new Republican Party gained traction with this decision. Since the party’s main platform was anti-slavery, they worked harder to spread their message.
In the Lincoln-Douglas debates for the Illinois U.S. Senate seat in 1858, Lincoln went as far as to assert that the country could not be divided on the issue of slavery. Despite losing the Senate seat to Stephen Douglas, Lincoln’s political prominence as a Republican grew.
In the 1860 presidential election, Northerners came out strongly to vote for the Republican Party, culminating in the election of Abraham Lincoln. Despite the Dred Scott decision not being a major cause of the Civil War, it influenced the events preceding the war, the succession of states, and problems within the Democratic Party.[11]
See also
External links
- Touro Law, Case Language, accessed December 5, 2013
- Dred Scott v. Sandford, accessed December 5, 2013
- Succession Era Editorial Project, Untitled, Gazette, accessed December 5, 2013
- Succession Era Editorial Project, "The Decision of the Dred Scott Case," Gazette Article, accessed December 5, 2013
- Succession Era Editorial Project, "Opinions of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case," Evening Journal, accessed December 5, 2013
- Succession Era Editorial Project, "The Dred Scott case," Enquirer, accessed December 5, 2013
- Succession Era Editorial Project, "The Important Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the Slavery Question," Daily Enquirer, accessed December 5, 2013
- Succession Era Editorial Project, "The Millennium at Last," Mercury, accessed December 5, 2013
- The History Place: The Dred Scott Decision, accessed December 5, 2013
- Teaching American History, Abraham Lincoln’s Speech, accessed December 5, 2013
Footnotes
- ↑ Oyez,“Dred Scott v. Sandford,” accessed November 26, 2013
- ↑ Our Documents, “Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857),” accessed November 26, 2013
- ↑ The Dred Scott Foundation, “The Chronology of an Era: The Decision,” accessed December 3, 2013
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Missouri Government, “Missouri’s Dred Scott Case, 1846-1857,” accessed November 29, 2013
- ↑ Voces Novae, “The Reaction to the Dred Scott Decision,” accessed December 3, 2013
- ↑ History Place, "'House Divided' Speech," accessed December 5, 2013
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Succession Era Editorials Project, "Richmond, Virginia, Enquirer-Democratic," accessed December 5, 2013
- ↑ Succession Era Editorials Project, "Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Gazette [Republican," accessed December 5, 2013]
- ↑ Washington University Digital Gateway, “History of Dred Scott,” accessed November 29, 2013
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Voces Novae, “The Reaction to the Dred Scott Decision,” accessed December 3, 2013
Cases and appeals
Scott's case lasted eleven years, from the initial filing of the petition, in 1846, to the decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1857. Read through the sections below to find more about the key people, the proceedings, and the decisions involved the case at each stage.
November 1853
In November 1853, the case was heard by the United States Circuit Court for the District of Missouri. The ruling found in favor of Sandford and left Scott and his family in slavery.[1]
Argument
The arguments were similar to Scott's original plea in 1846, though this suit included Scott’s daughters, Eliza and Lizzie, and claimed $9,000 in damages. Furthermore, the argument hinged on whether or not Scott could retain his freedom after returning to a slave state.
March 1852
In March 1852, the Missouri Supreme Court remanded Scott to slavery. During the course of the case, from 1850 to 1852, the court received two new members, and the case had to be reheard. The final vote was 2-1, with dissenting Justice Hamilton Gamble arguing that taking a slave to a free state was an act of emancipation.[1]
Arguments
Emerson’s attorneys continued to argue that military law was different than civil law because Dr. Emerson was not in those territories under his own consent, since he was ordered there by the military. Scott’s attorney made the same arguments from the previous trial. [1]
January 1850
In the St. Louis Circuit Court, a jury found for the plaintiffs, providing freedom for the Scotts.[1]
Proceedings
Testimony established the Scotts' residence in a free state and territory. Attorneys Garland and Norris argued Dr. Emerson was not under state law in those states. Rather, he was under military law, despite the precedent of Rachel v. Walker (1837) which determined that argument could not apply.
June 1847
In this St. Louis Circuit Court trial, a jury found that the Scotts should stay in slavery, due to the technicality of hearsay.[1]
Proceedings
Testimony at the trial verified that Scott had been sold by the Blows to Dr. Emerson, and that Dr. Emerson had, in fact, taken the Scotts to live in free territories. During the trial it was revealed that one of the witnesses, Samuel Russell, did not personally enter into the agreement with Emerson’s wife verifying that the Scotts were her slaves to be hired out; rather, he only paid her without learning of her relationship to the Scotts.
April 1848
The case reached the Missouri Supreme Court because George Goode, Emerson's attorney, filed a bill of exceptions to the motion for a new trial. The case, then, was taken on a writ of error. On June 30, 1848, a unanimous decision was issued by Judge William Scott, which said there was “no final judgment upon which a writ of error can only lie.”[1]
Footnotes
