mar 6, 1857 - Dred Scott v. San(d)ford

Description:

Overview:

Dred Scott, a slave, with the financial help of abolitionists, sues his owner, Irene Eliza Sanford Emerson (she went by Eliza), for his and his family's freedom. Dred Scott based his case on a fairly common rule of the time, freedom - by -residence (Extra-territorial Emancipation Doctrine). Scott would lose his cases in Missouri courts, the federal circuit court and ultimately in U.S. Supreme Court. Although these types of cases were fairly common during this era, no such case had ever made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. This was the first case, brought by a slave, to be heard in our nations court of last resort. In context, this was a period of high tensions between pro-slavery forces and abolitionists; stoking many flames on both sides. The case was finally decided four years prior to the start of the Civil War. Many consider this case a precursor to, and igniting, the Civil War.

History:

Upon the death of Dr. John Emerson, Dred Scott's owner, his wife Eliza Emerson inherits Dred Scott, his wife Harriett (Robinson), and their two children. Eliza decides to lease out the Scott family to military officers in the Wisconsin territory. When Dred Scott hears of Mrs. Emerson's plans, he offers to buy his, and his family's, freedom. When she refuses Scott files suit in a St. Louis court using the "freedom - by - residence" rule. This rule was recognized by both state and federal governments of the time. "This rule maintained, if a slave lived for a time on free soil, where the bonds of slavery were banned, that residence freed the slave and changed the person’s status unalterably, such that, if the slave again entered a jurisdiction where slavery was legal, the irreparably broken bonds would not reattach. Once free, forever free." Scott claims by being in Illinois (a free state), and subsequently the Wisconsin Territory (a free territory), he, and his family, acquired freedom through the "freedom-by-residence" rule. Now free (by Scott's assertions), he was brought back to Missouri, he was, according to the laws of that State, a citizen. According to Professor Christopher Bracey, Professor of law at George Washington University School of Law, there were at least 300 such cases, at the time, in Missouri courts.
Scott would lose his first case on a technicality (unable to prove Mrs. Emerson was his rightful owner). He appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court and won, giving him a second trial. Scott won his freedom, in his second trial, in the Missouri courts, but the Supreme Court of Missouri, on a second appeal, ruled in favor of Sanford and reverses the lower courts decision. Scott would go on to lose his case in a federal circuit court, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court. In some quarters, it is referred to as the worst Supreme Court's worst Decision. Dred Scott would fight his legal cases for eleven years.

Biography:

Dred Scott:
Dred Scott was born around 1799, in Southampton, Virginia. Scott lived the life of a domestic slave; he is described as a physically weak man. Like most slaves he was uneducated and could not even sign his own name. He was the slave of Peter and Elizabeth Blow. In 1818, Peter Blow purchased a cotton plantation in Alabama where he moves his family, and Dred Scott. The cotton (plantation) venture fails, and Peter Blow decides to move everyone to St. Louis, Missouri, where he purchases a boarding house. In 1830, Mrs. Blow dies and Peter Blow sells Dred Scott to an Army physician, Dr. John Emerson.
The life of a soldier is one of constant moving from one place to another. In 1833, Dr. Emerson is assigned to Fort Armstrong, Rock Island, Illinois (a free state) and takes Dred Scott with him. In 1836, Dr. Emerson is reassigned to the Wisconsin Territory, a "free territory," and once again brings Dred Scott along. While in the Wisconsin Territory Dred Scott meets, falls in love, and marries Harriet Robinson, another slave. Dr. Emerson now owns both Dred and Harriet. Along the way, the Scott's would have two daughters, one of whom, coincidentally, is named Eliza. True to form, as a soldier, Dr. Emerson is reassigned to St. Louis, but this time he leases Dred and Harriet to fellow Army officers and both slaves remain in the Wisconsin Territory. Dr. Emerson subsequently is reassigned to Louisiana where he meets Eliza Irene Sanford and they fall in love. Now married, Dr. Emerson has Dred and Harriet come to Louisiana and join them. Interestingly, the Scott's travel unaccompanied all the way from the Wisconsin Territory to Louisiana and they do not try and escape to freedom. From Louisiana they all return to St. Louis where Dr. Emerson dies in 1843.
In 1843, Mrs. Emerson decides to lease Dred Scott and his family to Army officers in the Wisconsin Territory; Dred Scott offers to buy-out himself and his family. Mrs. Scott refuses and Scott files a civil lawsuit a "Freedom Suit" Funded by the children of his original owner Peter and Elizabeth Blow. Apparently, Freedom suits were very common occurrence.
Meanwhile, Eliza marries republican congressman Calvin Chaffe, of Massachusetts. Due to the political climate of the time owning a slave would not be good political optics for a republican congressman from Massachusetts. So, Eliza sells Dred Scott and his family to her brother John Sanford of New York. John F.A. Sanford was a multimillionaire in the Fur trade.
According to Christopher Bracey, the transfer of ownership to a New York resident was extremely important to Scott's case. Being that Scott was claiming to be a citizen of Missouri, and his owner a resident of New York State, allowed Scott to file a suit in the federal courts. Unfortunately, Scott goes on to lose this case and the following U.S. Supreme Court decision would side with Sanford.
Peter and Elizabeth Blow's children, Scott's original owners, would purchase Dred Scott and his family and give them their freedom. Dred Scott Dies on September 17, 1858, 18 months later.

F.I.R.A.C. Outline:

Facts:

1. In December 1833, Dred Scott (a slave) was taken, from St. Louis , MO (a slave state) to Fort Armstrong, IL (a free State), by his owner Dr. John Emerson
2. In 1836, Dr. Emerson moved to Fort Snelling, Wisconsin Territory (a free territory), and Dred Scott accompanied him.
3. In 1840, Dr. Emerson returned, with Dred Scott, to St. Louis, Missouri (returned to a free state). Scott remained in Missouri with his wife Mrs. Eliza (Sanford) Emerson, while Dr. Emerson reported to Florida for duty in the Seminole Indian War.
4. In 1843, Dr. Emerson dies and his wife Eliza, inherits his slaves including Dred Scott and his family.
5. Eliza Emerson leases Dredd Scott and his family to Army officers in the Wisconsin Territory.
6. On Apr. 6, 1846, Scott Sues Mrs. Emerson in Missouri Court in Dred Scott v. Irene Emerson. Suit took place in the lower Circuit Court of St. Louis County.
7. Mrs. Emerson sells Scott, and his family, to her brother John F.A. Sanford, a New York–based Washington lobbyist. An important matter, because it now qualifies for federal eligibility in the federal courts.

Issues:

1. Jurisdiction (Article III, Section II of the U.S. Constitution.) -

Does Dred Scott, as a citizen of Missouri, have a right to have a standing in court?

2. Missouri Compromise constitutionality -

Does Congress have the constitutional power to regulate slavery in the new territories?

3. Is Dred Scott free?

Results:

1. It follows that it is apparent upon the record that the court below erred in its judgment on the plea in abatement, and also erred in giving judgment for the defendant, when the exception shows that the plaintiff was not a citizen of the United States. And the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction, either in the cases stated in the plea in abatement or in the one stated in the exception, its judgment in favor of the defendant is erroneous, and must be reversed.
A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. Consequently, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit. Therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules.
Excerpt of Court Transcript: "7. Since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no State can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of
Page 60 U. S. 394
the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument.
8. A State, by its laws passed since the adoption of the Constitution, may put a foreigner or any other description of persons upon a footing with its own citizens as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by them within its dominion and by its laws. But that will not make him a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another State.
9. The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted.
10. The plaintiff having admitted, by his demurrer to the plea in abatement, that his ancestors were imported from Africa and sold as slaves, he is not a citizen of the State of Missouri according to the Constitution of the United States and was not entitled to sue in that character in the Circuit Court.
11. This being the case, the judgment of the court below in favor of the plaintiff on the plea in abatement was erroneous." (Oyez)
2. The Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, for that matter so is the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Invalidating both acts. Slaves were property and that was protected under the 5th Amendment, according to the ruling.
Excerpt of Court Transcript:
"1. The territory thus acquired is acquired by the people of the United States for their common and equal benefit through their agent and trustee, the Federal Government. Congress can exercise no power over the rights of persons or property of a citizen in the Territory which is prohibited by the Constitution. The Government and the citizen, whenever the Territory is open to settlement, both enter it with their respective rights defined and limited by the Constitution."
3. Dred Scott is still a Slave. Since the Taney Court invalidated the Missouri Compromise of 1850, in this decision, Scott technically never entered free territory, thus not having a claim under the Extra-territorial Emancipation Doctrine.

Analysis:

1. The Taney Court ruled on three separate issues; two of national concern and the last in favor of the defendant. The first was whether or not Dred Scott had a standing before U.S. federal courts. This was a matter of jurisdiction. Whether or not Dred Scott was eligible to file a law suit. The court ruled since he was not a citizen, because of his ancestry as a slave, and could not file a claim in the federal courts. Basically, it was not the intent of the drafters of the U.S. Constitution to include slaves under its protections and privileges. Citizenship as a tool to "divide and rule" subordinated groups is a tactic that began with the Roman Empire (Langdon, 2018). The Romans handed out citizenships arbitrarily to the leaders and persons of influence within the groups they subjugated and provinces, while with-holding it from others. Romans proudly and arrogantly proclaimed "I am a citizen of Rome," which was a way of evoking their rights and protections. The same was felt about American citizenship during the Dred Scott era, as much as American citizenship is valued today. In context, many African Americans of the time, mostly in the northern states, had already acquired citizenship. This court decision would strip them of that citizenship and add to the rising tension of the Free and Slave states. During this time, the northern and southern states fought over the determination of the slave question into the vast lands of the unorganized territories of the former Louisiana Purchase, and the Michigan Territory for that matter.
2. The second issue was on that very question, on whether the U.S. Congress had the authority to make a determination on the slavery question for the people settling those lands, the territories, without their say. According to the Taney decision, Congress did not have the authority to determine slavery in the new territories. This was a decision only the inhabitants, of the territories in question could decide. The entire Missouri Compromise had been invalidated. Why was this important? Prior to the Missouri compromise there were 11 free states and 11 slave states. The compromise was to admit Missouri as a slave state, the 23 state, but no other slave states would be admitted above the 36 degrees 30' north latitude. This compromise was thought to have settled the slavery question in the new territories. But this did not sit well with the plantation owner aristocracy of the south, since the territories north of this line were more vast than the smaller Arkansas and Florida territories, to the south. In order for slavery to remain relevant the south needed to ensure there remained a balance between slave and free states in these new territories. Dred Scott v. Sandford was just the case pro-slavery advocates needed to reverse the Missouri Compromise.
3. The final question was that of whether or not Dred Scott was free or not. The court ruled no he was not. Simply put, Dred Scott, and any slave for that matter, were property. As property, the owner was protected under the 5th Amendment and could not have that property taken away from the owner without due process of the law.

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

One of the worst decisions in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court. Although the Taney Court and pro-slavery advocates (the southern plantation owning aristocracy) thought this decision would settle the nation's slavery issue once and for all. It had the exact opposite effect; some historians tie this case to enflaming already high tensions, which led to the Civil War. Abolitionists were outraged, the John Brown raid at Harper's Ferry occurred the following year 1959. Southerners see this case as authorizing the expansion of slavery, not only into the new territories, but ideas of moving to cities like New York City and bringing their domestic slave staff along. The Taney Court basically categorized all slaves as property which defined them as literal human-chattel.

LINKS:

Dred Scott Biography:
https://www.biography.com/people/dred-scott-9477240

History Channel - Dred Scott Decision
https://www.biography.com/people/dred-scott-9477240

HistoryNet - Dred Scott Decision
http://www.historynet.com/dred-scott

Library of Congress:
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/dredscott.html

PBS - Dred Scott's Fight for Freedom
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html

A Suit For Freedom (Slideshow):https://slideplayer.com/slide/3799151/

Weebly -D red Scott's Fight for African American Rights
https://52807266.weebly.com/

For Researchers:
Cornell University - LIIhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393

Our Documents:
https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=29&page=transcript

Oyez - Body Politic - Scott v. Sandford
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393

Added to timeline:

Date:

Images:

YouTube: