Dred Scott Vs Sandford Essay

Dred Scott v. Sandford Slavery was a often fought over issue when we were settling the South. Dred Scott v. Sandford is a great example of one of these cases. Dred Scott v. Sandford was a monumental decision made by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of slavery.

In the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, the Supreme Court decided the African people, whether free or slave, were not considered American citizens, and didn’t have the right to sue someone in federal court. During this case, the Court ruled that Congress didn’t have the power to ban slavery in territories. They also declared that the rights of slaveowners were protected by the Fifth Amendment in the Constitution. This is because slaves in their times were not considered people, they were considered as property.

It all started in 1833, when Dr. John Emerson, an U.S. Army surgeon, purchased Dred Scott, a slave, and moved him to a base in the Wisconsin Territory. Slavery was banned in this territory in accordance to the Missouri Compromise. The next four years of his life were spent hiring himself out for work during the long stretches while Emerson was away. In
1840, Scott, his new wife, and young children moved with Emerson to Louisiana and then to St. Louis. When Emerson died in 1843, Scott and his family were left with Eliza Irene Sandford, Emerson’s wife. In 1846, after many years of working and saving their money, they looked to buy their freedom from Sandford. She refused to let them go free. Scott then sued Sandford saying that he and his family had lived in a territory where slavery was banned. In 1850, Scott was finally declared free by the state court. However, Scott’s wages weren’t given to him pending the resolution of his case. During this time Mrs. Emerson got remarried and left her affairs to her brother, John Sandford. Unwilling to pay the wages owed to Scott back, Mr. Sandford appealed the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court. When the ruling was reviewed, the Court overturned the lower courts decision and ruled in the favor of Sandford. Scott then filed another lawsuit in a federal circuit court claiming damages against Snadford’s brother, John F.A. Sandford, saying that Sanford physically abused him. The jury ruled that Scott could not sue in the federal court because he had been said to be a slave under Missouri law. Scott then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which then reviewed the case in 1856.

In an infamous opinion written by Cheif Justice Roger B. Taney, the Supreme Court ruled that since Scott was, or at least had been a slave, the court lacked jurisdiction to take Scott’s case. The Court first argued that they could not take Scott’s case because federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are courts of “peculiar and limited jurisdiction” and may only listen to cases brought by select parties involving a limited amount of claims. For example, the U.S. Constitution, Article III, states that, “ Federal courts may only hear cases brought by citizens of the United States of America.” The reason the Court ruled it that way was because Scott was “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves,” and thus “not a member of the political party formed and brought into existance by the United States Constitution.” Therefore, Scott was not a citizen and he had no right to file a lawsuit in a federal court.

Secondly, the Court argued that even though Scott was a citizen of a free state, that did not make him a citizen of the United States. While the states were free to make there own criteria for citizenship, and had done so in the past before the Constitution came to be, the Constitution gives Congress the power to define national citizenship. The Court also argued that even though Scott was said to be “free” under state law, he would not have been an American citizen because he was black. The Court also said, in general, United States citizens are only those who are members of the “political community,” and slaves were not considered part of this community. Lastly the Court argued that, in any sort of case, Scott could not have been defined as free by virtue of his residency in the Wisconsin Territory, because Congress lacked the authority to ban slavery in United States territories. The Court considered slaves as property, and the Fifth Amendment forbids Congress from taking property away from anyone without just compensation.

The decision in the Dred Scott v.
Sandford case made the tension between the South and the North rise. Although the Missouri Compromise had been revoked before the case, the decision appeared to validate the Southern version of national power, and made pro-slavery Southerners bold enough to expand slavery to the far corners of our nation. Not unexpected, antislavery forces were frustrated by the decision, empowering the newly formed Republican Party and helping fuel violence between abolitionists and slaveowners on the frontier. Following the Civil War, Congress passed, and the states ratified the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, all of which overturned the Dred Scott v. Sandford case decision. Today, anyone naturalized or born in the United States are American citizens who have a right to bring a lawsuit in federal
court.