Dred Scott Thesis Statement
Outline and Thesis Statement:
In my paper I will be discussing a story about a man name Dred Scott. I also will outline and discuss Mr. Dred Scott life and what led up to the case in which we know as Dred Scott v. Sanford he is a slave sold to Sanford by Emerson. Emerson took Dred Scott from Missouri slave state to Illinois free state and to Louisiana Territory (free), then back to Missouri slave. Dred Scott argues that he becomes a free citizen by way of his travel through Illinois and also his time in a free territory. He also argues that his family was free by way of Louisiana Territory.
Scott won his freedom at trial court but the Missouri Supreme Court reversed and remanded. He lost and appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Did the Circuit Court have jurisdiction to hear the case?
a. Article III Section 2 says that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in cases where there are citizens of two different states.
b. But, is Dred Scott a citizen?
2. If the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, was the judgment given in error or not?
Slaves were not intended to be included under the word “citizens” in the Constitution and thus can claim none of those rights. Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution and therefore is not entitled to sue.
Neither Dred Scott nor …show more content…
his family was made free by being carried into Illinois.
Three issues to decide if court has jurisdiction:
1. Can any African American (free or slave) be a citizen?
2. Who were recognized as citizens when the Constitution was adopted (was the general term “citizen” in the Constitution meant to include slaves or was it just taken as a matter of fact that slaves were property)?
3. Just answering this question “no” would have taken care of the issue- although very broadly
b. Is the Missouri Compromise constitutional? Did congress have authority to make that state free? (to see if he becomes a citizen by way of Missouri)
i. Sanford claims that the Compromise is unconstitutional
1. Upper Louisiana is made free by the Missouri Compromise, but that means if you bring your slave into Upper Louisiana, you’ll be deprived of your property. Therefore, the Missouri Compromise is supposedly unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment Due Process Law. “No person shall be deprived of life liberty or property without due process.”
2. BUT ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse. You should have known that the area was free. if you bring a machine gun into NY, that gun can be taken away from you without violating your due process law.
3. answering just this question would have only decided the issue of whether the family was free, because Scott has Illinois as a claim, which had the right to be free regardless of the Missouri Compromise
c. What is the effect of Missouri law on the removal? Who decides what the effect of going into a free area is? Does Missouri law decide that? Or another state’s law?
i. Did Dred Scott become free by being taken by owner to a place where slavery could not by law exist (Rock Island, Illinois) and upon his return to Missouri thus became a citizen of that state?
ii. This narrow question is at the heart of the issue, and answering this question could have resolved all of it. Instead they issued a broad opinion about whether or not Africans can be citizens.
Judgment
Judgment for the defendant is reversed; mandate issued directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
In Scott there was no history of debate during the Constitution or history of debated on an amendment (these would be the best sources). Instead, relied on what people, in general, thought at the time
Donald Brown
04/29/2010
U.S. History 180
Dred Scott Decision
To begin the story of a slave is, of necessity , In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks—slaves as well as the free ones—were not and could not become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all of the country’s territories.
The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.
The Blow family was Dred first masters; they lived in Virginia on a farm, poor and worn out from years of cultivation, they moved with the “Era of Good feelings” west like so many others to Huntsville, Alabama (Hopkins p.1). For eleven years the Blow’s farmed in Alabama, but either the land had not been as bountiful as promised, or the lure of greater possibilities in growing St. Louis caused Peter Blow to move on. Huntsville was left behind and the Blows and their Negroes traveled again, this time northwest (Hopkins p. 2)
Peter Blow set up a boarding house called The Jefferson Hotel in St. Louis, but accumulating unpaid bills indicate that the venture was less than successful. Peter Blow eventually gave up his hotel and moved his family into another house, but his own health failed in the months that followed, he died on June 23, 1863(Fehrenbacher p. 239)
After Mr. Blow’s death in 1863 Dred Scott was sold to meet creditors’ debts for five hundred dollars to Dr. John Emerson who at the time had been trying to obtain an appointment as assistant surgeon to the United States Army. He received his commission and took with him a slave who was the former property of Peter Blow (Ferenbacher p. 240)
Dred Scott could not neither read nor write, and on legal documents he made his mark. He had very dark skin and may have been no more than five feet tall. He was described by newspaper once as illiterate but not ignorant with a strong common sense he however still remains a very indisnict figure (Fenebacher p. 240) It is uncertain how Dred Scott felt about being sold to Dr. Emerson, opinions on this differ. By one account he was so distraught that he ran away immediately after being sold by another that he begged John Emerson to buy him after having been whipped badly by Peter Blow (Ferenbacher p. 241 ).
On April 6, 1846 Dred Scott petition the Missouri circuit court citing his residency on free soil in Illinois and in the Minnesota Territory, as grounds for his freedom (Hopkins p. 10). The judge promptly gave them permission to sue . Dred and Harriet’s complaint was stated that on April 4 Mrs. Emerson had “beat, bruised and ill-treated him” and had then imprisoned them for twelve hours. It also stated that Dred was a “free person” held in slavery unlawfully by the defendant and it claimed damages of ten dollars. Thus at the beginning of Dred’s lawsuit there were two suits against Mrs. Emerson circulating throughout the Missouri courts (Fehrenbacher p. 251) On November 19, 1846 Mrs. Emerson filed a plea of not guilty in answer to Scott’s charge of assault (Hopkins p. 11).
On June 30, the trial commenced in the long, rectangular room at the west end of the still uncompleted courthouse in St. Louis (Hopkins p. 12).The task for the Scott’s attorneys seemed fairly simple. They had only to prove that Dred had been taken to reside on free soil and that he was now held as a slave by Mrs. Emerson.
However, none of the testimony that was put forth that day proved what everyone knew to be true, that Mrs. Emerson now owned Dred Scott. Justice was swift that day as a verdict were returned on that same day. (Fehrenbacher p. 253-254). The decision accomplished the effect that Mrs. Emerson was allowed to keep her slaves for the simple reason that no one had proved that they were her slaves(Fehrenbacher p.254). The Scott’s attorney promptly motioned for new a trial.
By this time it was clear that the determination of the Scott’s to have freedom was matched only by determination of Mrs. Emerson to keep her slaves. After the death of her father in 1848 Mrs. Emerson left St. Louis for Springfield, Massachusetts to live with one of her sisters. At this point John Sanford took over the provisions of sister’s affairs in St. Louis (Fehrenbacher p. 256)
More than year and self elapsed before the second trial was held. This time testimony clearly established that Mrs. Emerson did indeed own the Scott’s. The defense changed its strategy stating that at Forts Armstrong and Snelling. Emerson had been under military jurisdiction and therefore not subject to the laws of civil government that prohibited slavery. The verdict that followed by a matter of course made Dred Scott nominally a free man (Heffner p. 161). However times were changing in the United States at that particular time, slavery was becoming a hotly debated issue. Northern dissatisfaction was growning centered primarily on the Fugitive Slave Act, while Southern concern was centered on the apprehension of antislavery assaults (Hopkins p. 14) The Supreme Court judges discussed the drafting of their Dred Scott decision (Fehrenbacher p. 259). For months this task was put off, however while this procrastination was occurring the Supreme Court was changing. A recent amendment to the state constitution had changed the court from an appointed body to an elective body (Fehrenbacher p.260). So with the newly elected they set out to render a decision on the Scott case.
On March 22, 1852 Judge Scott finally announced the decision of the court, he found that Dred Scott was still a slave and ordered the decision of the lower court to be reversed. Thus ended the six-year fight to establish Dred Scott’s right for freedom under the laws and in the courts of Missouri (Fehrenbacher p. 265).
Dred Scott verses Sanford was a suit for freedom; the declaration filed for Scott on November 2, 1853 asserted that he was citizen of Missouri. It complained that on the preceding January 1unknown year but that, Sanford attacked and wrongfully imprisoned Dred, his wife Harriett and their two children. The damages totaled on these three charges totaled nine thousand dollars (Fehrenbacher p. 276). Sanford replied at the next term in April 1858, he claimed abatement on the grounds that Scott, as a negro desecended from slaves of “pure African blood,” and was not in fact a citizen of Missouri (Fehrenbacher p. 276) Sanford’s plea claimed the Scotts as his lawful slaves, asserted that he had “gently laid his hands upon them and restrained them of their liberty as he had right to do”. Whether Sanford had continued assault and false imprisonment depended entirely on whether the south were free persons or slaves (Howard p. 55). For more than a year it was docketed, the Dred Scott Case waited for the attention of the Supreme Court. While the case was waiting for attention from the Supreme Court it began to receive the attention from newspapers, they awakened to the idea that this might be the most important case in U.S. court history. The first was the Washington Evening Star, which on February 12 declared, “the Public of Washington do not seem to be aware that one of the most important cases ever brought up for adjudication by the Supreme Court is now tried before the August tribunal.” (Fehrenbacher 288) Only a few papers thus far had given the Dred Scott case anything more than routine attention. (fehrenbacher291). The running debate in Congress was well covered by the press, and the discussions spilled over into private conversations of Washington society. Obviously, postponement of the Dred Scott case had not diffused it (Fehrenbacher 293). Many more people were now aware of what might be a stake in one Negro’s fight for the freedom (Fehrenbacher294).
The Supreme Court of the United States would hear the case for the first time on February 11, 1856.
The Judges entered “without any flourish of parade…ranked according to the dates of their respective commissions. “At the head of the procession there walked “ with firm and steady step…a tall, thin, man, slightly bent with the weight of years, of pale complexion, and features somewhat careworn but lighted up at once with that benignant expression which is indicative at once of a gentle temperament and a kindly heart, “Chief Justice Taney. To his right and left were, John McLean of Ohio and James Moore Wayne, of Georgia, respectively (Hopkins
33).
Scott’s attorney argued to the point of Scott’s citizenship at least so far as to enable them to sue in the courts of the United States. He found that the opinion of the majority, “that to be a citizen, it is necessary that he (the person so claiming) should be entitled to the employment of those privileges and immunities upon the same terms upon which they are conferred other citizens and unless they are so entitled he cannot in the proper senses of the terms be a citizen” (Hopkins 33). Scott’s attorney then challenged the defense, that citizenship was acquired by birth. He felt sure that it could not be proved that free Negroes were not citizens n the limited sense (Hopkins 34-35). He argued whether “Dred and his family were emancipated by being taken to Illinois”. For its dry legal content, the debate in the crowded little courtroom was very political. The defendant’s argument turned frequently to the general vindication of the South and slavery-an institution (Fehrenbacher 302). This the second round of arguments ended and it seemed almost certain that a decision would be handed down before the end of the term (Fehrenbacher 303).
On March 6, 1857, the nine judges again filed into their basement courtroom, leading the way as usual was Chief Justice Taney (Hopkins 61). Taney led off the reading of opinions, in the crowded courtroom. Already fatigued from the work of composition, he spoke in a low voice that became almost inaudible before the end of his two hours (Fehrenbacher 315). Taney stated, a writ or error brought the whole record before the appellate court, which must decide if the facts stated in the plea were sufficient to show that the plaintiff was entitled to sue as a citizen in the courts of the United States. (Hopkins 62). Taney then addressed himself to the question of the citizenship of free Negroes. The question is simply this, “Can a Negro whose ancestors were imported to this county, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitutions of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution (Howard p. 9). In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the languages used in the declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendents, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instruments. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; an so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit (Howard p. 13). And upon full and careful consideration of the subject the court is of the opinion that, upon the facts stated in the plea of abatement, Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. Thus Chief Justice Taney stated the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States of America (Fehrenbacher p. 364).
Officially nothing remained now but to wind up the case. An order to the Court of the United States for the district of Missouri issued by the Supreme Court, informing the court that its decision in the case of Scott vs. Sanford was reversed. Finally, on March 18, 1857 the Scotts as well as being declared slaves were ordered to pay costs. The actual litigation was at an end. The press, the pulpits and politicians, however, took up the war of words where the judges had left it (Hopkins p. 156).
The Dred Scott decision, aside from its revolutionary significance, was also a public act that had important public consequences (Fehrenbacher p. 561). The principle reason for the prominence of the decision in America historical writing is the belief that it became a major casual link between the general forces of national disruptions and the final crisis of the Union in 1860-61 (Fehrenbacher p. 562). The great importance thus attached to the Dred Scott decision be members of the American legal profession in the late twentieth century is extraordinary. No doubt the interest is inspired in some degree by exaggerated estimated of Dred Scott influence on the disruption of the Union. It also reflects the persistence of racial troubles in modern America and the central place of the Civil War in American historical consciousness. But in the long run, Taney’s decision will probably be most significant as an epoch in the growth of American judicial power.
Most people, whether for or against the decision, viewed it as a political decision and not a legal one. For the first time since Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 (and only the second time ever) the Supreme Court declared an act of Congress [the Missouri Compromise] null and void. The decision also lowered the Court 's prestige in the North and widened the sectional cleavage by moving Southerners from the position that slavery could not be kept out of the territories to the assertion that it must be protected in them.
The story of the Missouri slave Dred Scott and his quest for freedom is one of the least known and yet most influential from the turbulent years leading up to the Abraham Lincoln would be elected President, the Early Years: 1809 – 1833.
Bibliography:
Fehrenbacher, Don E. (1978). The Dread Scott Case. New York: Oxford
University Press. An overview of slavery and the events leading up to the case of
Dred Scott vs. Sanford.
Heffner, Richard D. (1999). A Documentary History of the United States (sixth edition expanded and updated). New York: Penguin Putnam Inc.
A brief statement on the fifty four page majority opinion of the Supreme Court as written by Chief Justice Taney.
Hopkins, Vincent C. (1967). Dred Scott’s Case. New York: Athenaeum.
Dred Scott’s Life prior to the case. The scandal that surrounded Dred Scott. Cultural
Repercussions that followed.
Howard, Benjamin C. (1857). Dred Scott vs. Sanford. Washington: Cornelius
Wendell, Printer
Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of
Dred Scott vs. Sanford
In my paper I will be discussing a story about a man name Dred Scott. I also will outline and discuss Mr. Dred Scott life and what led up to the case in which we know as Dred Scott v. Sanford he is a slave sold to Sanford by Emerson. Emerson took Dred Scott from Missouri slave state to Illinois free state and to Louisiana Territory (free), then back to Missouri slave. Dred Scott argues that he becomes a free citizen by way of his travel through Illinois and also his time in a free territory. He also argues that his family was free by way of Louisiana Territory.
Scott won his freedom at trial court but the Missouri Supreme Court reversed and remanded. He lost and appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Did the Circuit Court have jurisdiction to hear the case?
a. Article III Section 2 says that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in cases where there are citizens of two different states.
b. But, is Dred Scott a citizen?
2. If the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, was the judgment given in error or not?
Slaves were not intended to be included under the word “citizens” in the Constitution and thus can claim none of those rights. Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution and therefore is not entitled to sue.
Neither Dred Scott nor …show more content…
his family was made free by being carried into Illinois.
Three issues to decide if court has jurisdiction:
1. Can any African American (free or slave) be a citizen?
2. Who were recognized as citizens when the Constitution was adopted (was the general term “citizen” in the Constitution meant to include slaves or was it just taken as a matter of fact that slaves were property)?
3. Just answering this question “no” would have taken care of the issue- although very broadly
b. Is the Missouri Compromise constitutional? Did congress have authority to make that state free? (to see if he becomes a citizen by way of Missouri)
i. Sanford claims that the Compromise is unconstitutional
1. Upper Louisiana is made free by the Missouri Compromise, but that means if you bring your slave into Upper Louisiana, you’ll be deprived of your property. Therefore, the Missouri Compromise is supposedly unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment Due Process Law. “No person shall be deprived of life liberty or property without due process.”
2. BUT ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse. You should have known that the area was free. if you bring a machine gun into NY, that gun can be taken away from you without violating your due process law.
3. answering just this question would have only decided the issue of whether the family was free, because Scott has Illinois as a claim, which had the right to be free regardless of the Missouri Compromise
c. What is the effect of Missouri law on the removal? Who decides what the effect of going into a free area is? Does Missouri law decide that? Or another state’s law?
i. Did Dred Scott become free by being taken by owner to a place where slavery could not by law exist (Rock Island, Illinois) and upon his return to Missouri thus became a citizen of that state?
ii. This narrow question is at the heart of the issue, and answering this question could have resolved all of it. Instead they issued a broad opinion about whether or not Africans can be citizens.
Judgment
Judgment for the defendant is reversed; mandate issued directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
In Scott there was no history of debate during the Constitution or history of debated on an amendment (these would be the best sources). Instead, relied on what people, in general, thought at the time
Donald Brown
04/29/2010
U.S. History 180
Dred Scott Decision
To begin the story of a slave is, of necessity , In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks—slaves as well as the free ones—were not and could not become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all of the country’s territories.
The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.
The Blow family was Dred first masters; they lived in Virginia on a farm, poor and worn out from years of cultivation, they moved with the “Era of Good feelings” west like so many others to Huntsville, Alabama (Hopkins p.1). For eleven years the Blow’s farmed in Alabama, but either the land had not been as bountiful as promised, or the lure of greater possibilities in growing St. Louis caused Peter Blow to move on. Huntsville was left behind and the Blows and their Negroes traveled again, this time northwest (Hopkins p. 2)
Peter Blow set up a boarding house called The Jefferson Hotel in St. Louis, but accumulating unpaid bills indicate that the venture was less than successful. Peter Blow eventually gave up his hotel and moved his family into another house, but his own health failed in the months that followed, he died on June 23, 1863(Fehrenbacher p. 239)
After Mr. Blow’s death in 1863 Dred Scott was sold to meet creditors’ debts for five hundred dollars to Dr. John Emerson who at the time had been trying to obtain an appointment as assistant surgeon to the United States Army. He received his commission and took with him a slave who was the former property of Peter Blow (Ferenbacher p. 240)
Dred Scott could not neither read nor write, and on legal documents he made his mark. He had very dark skin and may have been no more than five feet tall. He was described by newspaper once as illiterate but not ignorant with a strong common sense he however still remains a very indisnict figure (Fenebacher p. 240) It is uncertain how Dred Scott felt about being sold to Dr. Emerson, opinions on this differ. By one account he was so distraught that he ran away immediately after being sold by another that he begged John Emerson to buy him after having been whipped badly by Peter Blow (Ferenbacher p. 241 ).
On April 6, 1846 Dred Scott petition the Missouri circuit court citing his residency on free soil in Illinois and in the Minnesota Territory, as grounds for his freedom (Hopkins p. 10). The judge promptly gave them permission to sue . Dred and Harriet’s complaint was stated that on April 4 Mrs. Emerson had “beat, bruised and ill-treated him” and had then imprisoned them for twelve hours. It also stated that Dred was a “free person” held in slavery unlawfully by the defendant and it claimed damages of ten dollars. Thus at the beginning of Dred’s lawsuit there were two suits against Mrs. Emerson circulating throughout the Missouri courts (Fehrenbacher p. 251) On November 19, 1846 Mrs. Emerson filed a plea of not guilty in answer to Scott’s charge of assault (Hopkins p. 11).
On June 30, the trial commenced in the long, rectangular room at the west end of the still uncompleted courthouse in St. Louis (Hopkins p. 12).The task for the Scott’s attorneys seemed fairly simple. They had only to prove that Dred had been taken to reside on free soil and that he was now held as a slave by Mrs. Emerson.
However, none of the testimony that was put forth that day proved what everyone knew to be true, that Mrs. Emerson now owned Dred Scott. Justice was swift that day as a verdict were returned on that same day. (Fehrenbacher p. 253-254). The decision accomplished the effect that Mrs. Emerson was allowed to keep her slaves for the simple reason that no one had proved that they were her slaves(Fehrenbacher p.254). The Scott’s attorney promptly motioned for new a trial.
By this time it was clear that the determination of the Scott’s to have freedom was matched only by determination of Mrs. Emerson to keep her slaves. After the death of her father in 1848 Mrs. Emerson left St. Louis for Springfield, Massachusetts to live with one of her sisters. At this point John Sanford took over the provisions of sister’s affairs in St. Louis (Fehrenbacher p. 256)
More than year and self elapsed before the second trial was held. This time testimony clearly established that Mrs. Emerson did indeed own the Scott’s. The defense changed its strategy stating that at Forts Armstrong and Snelling. Emerson had been under military jurisdiction and therefore not subject to the laws of civil government that prohibited slavery. The verdict that followed by a matter of course made Dred Scott nominally a free man (Heffner p. 161). However times were changing in the United States at that particular time, slavery was becoming a hotly debated issue. Northern dissatisfaction was growning centered primarily on the Fugitive Slave Act, while Southern concern was centered on the apprehension of antislavery assaults (Hopkins p. 14) The Supreme Court judges discussed the drafting of their Dred Scott decision (Fehrenbacher p. 259). For months this task was put off, however while this procrastination was occurring the Supreme Court was changing. A recent amendment to the state constitution had changed the court from an appointed body to an elective body (Fehrenbacher p.260). So with the newly elected they set out to render a decision on the Scott case.
On March 22, 1852 Judge Scott finally announced the decision of the court, he found that Dred Scott was still a slave and ordered the decision of the lower court to be reversed. Thus ended the six-year fight to establish Dred Scott’s right for freedom under the laws and in the courts of Missouri (Fehrenbacher p. 265).
Dred Scott verses Sanford was a suit for freedom; the declaration filed for Scott on November 2, 1853 asserted that he was citizen of Missouri. It complained that on the preceding January 1unknown year but that, Sanford attacked and wrongfully imprisoned Dred, his wife Harriett and their two children. The damages totaled on these three charges totaled nine thousand dollars (Fehrenbacher p. 276). Sanford replied at the next term in April 1858, he claimed abatement on the grounds that Scott, as a negro desecended from slaves of “pure African blood,” and was not in fact a citizen of Missouri (Fehrenbacher p. 276) Sanford’s plea claimed the Scotts as his lawful slaves, asserted that he had “gently laid his hands upon them and restrained them of their liberty as he had right to do”. Whether Sanford had continued assault and false imprisonment depended entirely on whether the south were free persons or slaves (Howard p. 55). For more than a year it was docketed, the Dred Scott Case waited for the attention of the Supreme Court. While the case was waiting for attention from the Supreme Court it began to receive the attention from newspapers, they awakened to the idea that this might be the most important case in U.S. court history. The first was the Washington Evening Star, which on February 12 declared, “the Public of Washington do not seem to be aware that one of the most important cases ever brought up for adjudication by the Supreme Court is now tried before the August tribunal.” (Fehrenbacher 288) Only a few papers thus far had given the Dred Scott case anything more than routine attention. (fehrenbacher291). The running debate in Congress was well covered by the press, and the discussions spilled over into private conversations of Washington society. Obviously, postponement of the Dred Scott case had not diffused it (Fehrenbacher 293). Many more people were now aware of what might be a stake in one Negro’s fight for the freedom (Fehrenbacher294).
The Supreme Court of the United States would hear the case for the first time on February 11, 1856.
The Judges entered “without any flourish of parade…ranked according to the dates of their respective commissions. “At the head of the procession there walked “ with firm and steady step…a tall, thin, man, slightly bent with the weight of years, of pale complexion, and features somewhat careworn but lighted up at once with that benignant expression which is indicative at once of a gentle temperament and a kindly heart, “Chief Justice Taney. To his right and left were, John McLean of Ohio and James Moore Wayne, of Georgia, respectively (Hopkins
33).
Scott’s attorney argued to the point of Scott’s citizenship at least so far as to enable them to sue in the courts of the United States. He found that the opinion of the majority, “that to be a citizen, it is necessary that he (the person so claiming) should be entitled to the employment of those privileges and immunities upon the same terms upon which they are conferred other citizens and unless they are so entitled he cannot in the proper senses of the terms be a citizen” (Hopkins 33). Scott’s attorney then challenged the defense, that citizenship was acquired by birth. He felt sure that it could not be proved that free Negroes were not citizens n the limited sense (Hopkins 34-35). He argued whether “Dred and his family were emancipated by being taken to Illinois”. For its dry legal content, the debate in the crowded little courtroom was very political. The defendant’s argument turned frequently to the general vindication of the South and slavery-an institution (Fehrenbacher 302). This the second round of arguments ended and it seemed almost certain that a decision would be handed down before the end of the term (Fehrenbacher 303).
On March 6, 1857, the nine judges again filed into their basement courtroom, leading the way as usual was Chief Justice Taney (Hopkins 61). Taney led off the reading of opinions, in the crowded courtroom. Already fatigued from the work of composition, he spoke in a low voice that became almost inaudible before the end of his two hours (Fehrenbacher 315). Taney stated, a writ or error brought the whole record before the appellate court, which must decide if the facts stated in the plea were sufficient to show that the plaintiff was entitled to sue as a citizen in the courts of the United States. (Hopkins 62). Taney then addressed himself to the question of the citizenship of free Negroes. The question is simply this, “Can a Negro whose ancestors were imported to this county, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitutions of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution (Howard p. 9). In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the languages used in the declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendents, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instruments. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; an so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit (Howard p. 13). And upon full and careful consideration of the subject the court is of the opinion that, upon the facts stated in the plea of abatement, Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. Thus Chief Justice Taney stated the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States of America (Fehrenbacher p. 364).
Officially nothing remained now but to wind up the case. An order to the Court of the United States for the district of Missouri issued by the Supreme Court, informing the court that its decision in the case of Scott vs. Sanford was reversed. Finally, on March 18, 1857 the Scotts as well as being declared slaves were ordered to pay costs. The actual litigation was at an end. The press, the pulpits and politicians, however, took up the war of words where the judges had left it (Hopkins p. 156).
The Dred Scott decision, aside from its revolutionary significance, was also a public act that had important public consequences (Fehrenbacher p. 561). The principle reason for the prominence of the decision in America historical writing is the belief that it became a major casual link between the general forces of national disruptions and the final crisis of the Union in 1860-61 (Fehrenbacher p. 562). The great importance thus attached to the Dred Scott decision be members of the American legal profession in the late twentieth century is extraordinary. No doubt the interest is inspired in some degree by exaggerated estimated of Dred Scott influence on the disruption of the Union. It also reflects the persistence of racial troubles in modern America and the central place of the Civil War in American historical consciousness. But in the long run, Taney’s decision will probably be most significant as an epoch in the growth of American judicial power.
Most people, whether for or against the decision, viewed it as a political decision and not a legal one. For the first time since Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 (and only the second time ever) the Supreme Court declared an act of Congress [the Missouri Compromise] null and void. The decision also lowered the Court 's prestige in the North and widened the sectional cleavage by moving Southerners from the position that slavery could not be kept out of the territories to the assertion that it must be protected in them.
The story of the Missouri slave Dred Scott and his quest for freedom is one of the least known and yet most influential from the turbulent years leading up to the Abraham Lincoln would be elected President, the Early Years: 1809 – 1833.
Bibliography:
Fehrenbacher, Don E. (1978). The Dread Scott Case. New York: Oxford
University Press. An overview of slavery and the events leading up to the case of
Dred Scott vs. Sanford.
Heffner, Richard D. (1999). A Documentary History of the United States (sixth edition expanded and updated). New York: Penguin Putnam Inc.
A brief statement on the fifty four page majority opinion of the Supreme Court as written by Chief Justice Taney.
Hopkins, Vincent C. (1967). Dred Scott’s Case. New York: Athenaeum.
Dred Scott’s Life prior to the case. The scandal that surrounded Dred Scott. Cultural
Repercussions that followed.
Howard, Benjamin C. (1857). Dred Scott vs. Sanford. Washington: Cornelius
Wendell, Printer
Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of
Dred Scott vs. Sanford