Dred Scott v. Sanford
March 6, 1857
And upon a full and careful consideration of the subject, the court is of opinion that… Dred Scott
was not a citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and not
entitled as such to sue in its courts; and, consequently, that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of
the case. . .
We proceed, therefore, to inquire whether the facts relied on by the
plaintiff entitled him to his freedom. . . .In considering this part of the controversy, two questions
arise: 1st. Was he, together with his family, free in Missouri by reason of the stay in the territory of
the United States hereinbefore mentioned? And 2d, If they were not, is Scott himself free by reason
of his removal to Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, as stated in the above admissions? We proceed
to examine the first question…
The Act of Congress, upon which the plaintiff relies, [the Missouri
compromise] declares that slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime,
shall be forever prohibited in all that part of the territory ceded by France, under the name of
Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, and not included
within the limits of Missouri. And the difficulty ..is, whether Congress was authorized to pass this
law under any of the powers granted to it by the Constitution…
…The rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by
the fifth amendment to the Constitution. . . . An Act of Congress which deprives a person of the
United States of his liberty or property merely because he came himself or brought his property
into a particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offense against the
laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law. . . .
It seems, however, to be supposed, that there is a difference between
property in a slave and other property… But . . ..the Constitution recognizes the right of property
of the master in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description of property and other
property owned by a citizen…
Now . . . the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution.
The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guaranteed to the
citizens of the United States, in every State that might desire it, for twenty years. And the
Government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time, if the slave escapes from his
owner. . . . And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power
over slave property, or which entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any
other description. The
only power conferred is the power coupled with the duty of guarding and protecting the owner in
his rights.
Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the Act of Congress [the Missouri
compromise] which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the
territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the
Constitution, and is therefore void; and that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were
made free by being carried into this territory; even if they had been carried there by the owner,
with the intention of becoming a permanent resident. . . .
Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that it appears by the record before us
that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the
Constitution; and that the Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no jurisdiction in
the case, and could give no judgment in it.
Mason v. Smith (The Bridget “Biddy” Mason Case) (1856)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
Before the Hon. Benjamin Hayes,
Judge of the District Court of the
First Judicial District State of California,
County of Los Angeles.
… Now on this nineteenth day of January, in the year of Our Lord, one thousand, eight hundred
and fifty-six…
And after hearing, and duly considering the petition for habeas corpus and the return of claimant
thereto, and all the proofs and allegations of the said parties and all the proceedings previously had
herein, it appearing satisfactory to the judge here that all the said persons so suing in this case towit: … Biddy, and her said children are persons of color, and that …said Biddy, Ellen, Ann, and
Harriet have resided with the said Robert Smith for more than four years, and since some time in
the year of our Lord one thousand, eight hundred and fifty-one in the State of Calfornia; and it
further appearing that the said Robert Smith left and removed from the State of Mississippi more
than eight years ago with the intention of not returning thereto, but of establishing himself as a
resident in Utah Territory, and more than four years ago left and removed from said Utah
Territory with the intention of residing and establishing himself in the State of California, and has so
resided in said last mentioned State, since some time in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and fifty-one.
And it further appearing by satisfactory proof to the judge here, that all of the said persons of color
are entitled to their freedom, and are free and cannot be held in slavery or involuntary servitude, it
is therefore argued that they are entitled to their freedom and are free forever. And it further
appearing to the satisfaction of the judge here that the said Robert Smith intended to and is about to
remove from the State of California where slavery does not exist, to the State of Texas, where
slavery of Negroes and persons of color does exist, and is established by the municipal laws, and
intends to remove the said before-mentioned persons of color, to his own use without the free will
and consent of all or any of the said persons of color, whereby their liberty will be greatly
jeopardized, and there is good reason to apprehend and believe that they may be sold into slavery
or involuntary servitude and the said Robert Smith is persuading and enticing and seducing said
persons of color to go out of the State of California, and it further appearing that none of the said
persons of color can read and write, and are almost entirely ignorant of the laws of the state of
California as well as those of the State of Texas, and of their rights and that the said Robert Smith,
from his past relations to them as members of his family does possess and exercise over them an
undue influence in respect to the matter of their said removal insofar that they have been in duress
and not in possession and exercise of their free will so as to give a binding consent to any
engagement or arrangement with him.
…
Given under my hand as judge of the First Judicial District Court of the State of California, on the
19th day of January, A.D. 1856, at the City of Los Angeles.
BENJAMIN HAYES
District judge
Sentence Deconstruction
Connecto
r Words
Historical
Actors
Verb/Verb
Phrases
Who, What, Where,
Message
Questions or Conclusions
The Dred Scott Decision
(From PBS Africans in America website)
Dred Scott first went to trial to sue for his freedom in 1847. Ten years later, after a decade
of appeals and court reversals, his case was finally brought before the United States
Supreme Court. In what is perhaps the most infamous case in its history, the court decided
that all people of African ancestry -- slaves as well as those who were free -- could never
become citizens of the United States and therefore could not sue in federal court. The court
also ruled that the federal government did not have the power to prohibit slavery in its
territories. Scott, needless to say, remained a slave.
Born around 1800, Scott migrated westward with his master, Peter Blow. They travelled
from Scott's home state of Virginia to Alabama and then, in 1830, to St. Louis, Missouri.
Two years later Peter Blow died; Scott was subsequently bought by army surgeon Dr. John
Emerson, who later took Scott to the free state of Illinois. In the spring of 1836, after a stay
of two and a half years, Emerson moved to a fort in the Wisconsin Territory, taking Scott
along. While there, Scott met and married Harriet Robinson, a slave owned by a local
justice of the peace. Ownership of Harriet was transferred to Emerson.
Scott's extended stay in Illinois, a free state, gave him the legal standing to make a claim for
freedom, as did his extended stay in Wisconsin, where slavery was also prohibited. But
Scott never made the claim while living in the free lands -- perhaps because he was unaware
of his rights at the time, or perhaps because he was content with his master. After two
years, the army transferred Emerson to the south: first to St Louis, then to Louisiana. A
little over a year later, a recently-married Emerson summoned his slave couple. Instead of
staying in the free territory of Wisconsin, or going to the free state of Illinois, the two
travelled over a thousand miles, apparently unaccompanied, down the Mississippi River to
meet their master. Only after Emerson's death in 1843, after Emerson's widow hired Scott
out to an army captain, did Scott seek freedom for himself and his wife. First he offered to
buy his freedom from Mrs. Emerson -- then living in St. Louis -- for $300. The offer was
refused. Scott then sought freedom through the courts.
Scott went to trial in June of 1847, but lost on a technicality -- he couldn't prove that he
and Harriet were owned by Emerson's widow. The following year the Missouri Supreme
Court decided that case should be retried. In an 1850 retrial, the St Louis circuit court
ruled that Scott and his family were free. Two years later the Missouri Supreme Court
stepped in again, reversing the decision of the lower court. Scott and his lawyers then
brought his case to a federal court, the United States Circuit Court in Missouri. In 1854,
the Circuit Court upheld the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court. There was now only
one other place to go. Scott appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court.
The nine justices of the Supreme Court of 1856 certainly had biases regarding slavery.
Seven had been appointed by pro-slavery presidents from the South, and of these, five were
from slave-holding families. Still, if the case had gone directly from the state supreme court
to the federal supreme court, the federal court probably would have upheld the state's
ruling, citing a previously established decision that gave states the authority to determine
the status of its inhabitants. But, in his attempt to bring his case to the federal courts, Scott
had claimed that he and the case's defendant (Mrs. Emerson's brother, John Sanford, who
lived in New York) were citizens from different states. The main issues for the Supreme
Court, therefore, were whether it had jurisdiction to try the case and whether Scott was
indeed a citizen.
The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a
staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that
because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision
also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in
certain territories, unconstitutional.
While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were
outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the
Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession
from the Union.
Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the
years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his
wife and set them free.
Dred Scott died nine months later.