“Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Declaration of Independence
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) – Attorneys
T
his Supreme Court case will be unlike anything that
you have encountered previously. Working with your
fellow lawyers, your task will be to craft a 2-4 page
essay supporting your case after researching the background
of Dred Scott, precedents (previous court cases), and several
other historical documents. While the court is in session, you
will attempt to read through your essay and answer the
questions that the Supreme Court Justices have for you.
These questions will be challenging and the only way that
you will win your case is if you thoroughly prepare for it;
your opposition will do everything in their power to
prove their side. Make sure to plan accordingly because
the fate of the Union is in your hands.
Current Building of the
U.S. Supreme Court, built 1935
Tasks:
1. Actively read through your material and complete the corresponding questions (history,
precedents, etc.)
2. Craft a 2-4 page essay on Google Docs addressing your case addressing the following: the
facts, issue, precedents, you argument, and the conclusion the day before the trial
3. Compile a list of questions that the justices might ask and interrupt you with during trial
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Declaration of Independence
Dred Scotts’ Attorneys (Petitioner)
You Should Attempt to Prove:
a. That Dred Scott was a resident in a free state, Illinois. (This is
important because slavery is outlawed in that state.)
b. That Dred Scott was a resident in the Territory of Wisconsin.
(Slavery is outlawed in that territory by the Missouri
Compromise of 1820 by an act of Congress.)
c. Blacks are entitled to United States citizenship and to trial by
the Federal courts, since they were citizens in many states
when the Constitution was written. Not all Blacks were
slaves.
d. The right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness addressed
in the Declaration of Independence includes Blacks in its
meaning; therefore Blacks have all the rights of native born
citizens.
Dred Scott
Your Opposition Will Attempt to Approve:
a. Federal courts do not have jurisdiction (authority) over Dred Scott. This is because he was not
a citizen of the United States. The Constitution says only citizens may have trials in the
Federal Courts (Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1)
b. Slaves were not, at the time the Constitution was adopted, citizens of any state.
c. Dred Scott's suit should have never been allowed in federal courts; nor had his presence in a
free territory changed his status and given him the right to sue.
d. Each state has the right to determine for itself the status of a slave – regardless of temporary
residence in other areas. Under the Constitution, each state must honor the laws of every
other state (Article 4, Section 1). Since Dred Scott lives in Missouri, the laws of that state make
him a slave.
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Declaration of Independence
John F.A. Sanford’s Attorneys (Respondent):
You Should Attempt to Prove:
a. Federal courts do not have jurisdiction (authority) because
Dred Scott was not a citizen of the United States. The
Constitution says only citizens may have trials in the federal
courts. (see Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution)
b. Slaves were not citizens of any state when the Constitution
was adopted.
c. Since Dred Scott lives in Missouri, the laws of that state
apply to him. Missouri says he is property. He is not a
citizen and temporary residence in another state does not
make him a citizen. Under the Constitution, each state
must honor the laws of every other state (Article 4,
Section 1 of the Constitution).
“Everyone has the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.” – Declaration of
Independence
d. Slave property like any other property is protected by the
Constitution. An owner of property cannot have his
property taken away because he enters another state. His property can only be taken away by
due process of law and he must be given just compensation (Amendment 5 of the
Constitution).
e. Dred Scott, after living in free territory, went back to Missouri in 1837. He has lived in that
state until the trial before the Supreme Court in 1857. He is clearly a resident of Missouri.
Your Opposition Will Attempt to Prove:
a. That Dred Scott used to live in the free state of Illinois.
b. That Dred Scott used to live in the Territory of Wisconsin. Slavery is outlawed in that territory
by the Missouri Compromise of 1820 by act of Congress.
c. Blacks are entitled to United States citizenship and to trial by the Federal courts, since they
were citizens in many states when the Constitution was written.
d. The right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness addressed in the Declaration of
Independence includes Blacks in its meaning; therefore Blacks have all the rights of native
born citizens.
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Declaration of Independence
Background of the Dred Scott Case
Actively read through the following pages to help you prove your case. Make sure to answer each of the
questions along the way. Remember that your mission is to convince the Supreme Court Justices that your case
is supported by a sound understanding of the law. To do so you should have a thorough understanding of the
procedure for arguing your case, the background of the Dred Scott Case, past Supreme Court Cases, the two
compromises in the Senate, and an understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
D
red Scott, a slave from Missouri, had been taken by his owner, an
army doctor, to the free state of Illinois in 1834. After two years
he was taken into the Wisconsin Territory in 1837 where slavery
was forbidden under the Missouri Compromise. Scott and his owner
returned to Missouri in 1838 where they stayed for eight years. With the
death of his owner, Scott was given to Doctor Emerson's wife and her
brother John Sanford. Dred Scott with the urging and assistance of local
lawyers in Missouri sued for his freedom. Scott argued that since he had
lived in a free state and a free territory, he was free. He won in the lower
state courts of Missouri, but lost in the highest state court. Because Mrs.
Emerson had remarried and moved to New York, the lawyers for Scott
appealed to the federal courts, since the case involved the citizens of two
states. In 1857, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the
case.
1. Create a timeline of the important events from above.
Scott’s wife, Harriet who he
legally married
Broadside of the
Presidential Race of 1860
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Declaration of Independence
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) – Precedent Cases & Etc.
For each of the precedent cases create a one sentence summary.
Rachel v. Walker (1836 Missouri Supreme Court case)
Missouri's case law prior to the Dred Scott case showed that in the cases where slave owners took
slaves to free territory and then returned to the slave state, the slaves were actually emancipated
(freed) upon arrival in the free state. This was based on an informal legal precedent called "comity"
(one court recognizing the jurisdiction or authority of another.) This particular case determined that
even a slave-holing officer residing on a military post in a free state was obligated to follow that
state's rules. (Fehrenbacher, 130)
2. One-sentence Summary:
U.S. v. The Amistad (1841 U.S. Supreme Court case)
In this case, kidnapped Africans were transported
from Guinea to Cuba on a Portuguese slave ship in
violation of Spanish laws forbidding the
international slave trade. The slaves were sold to
two Spaniards who were overpowered by the
Africans while transporting them on the Amistad.
The Africans were attempting to return to Africa,
but the ship landed near Long Island, New York and
they were taken to New London, Connecticut.
La Amistad
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Africans
stating that there was no evidence that the Africans
were in fact slaves (they found that the documents that the Cubans had given were falsified.)
However, even though the Court did rule in the Africans favor, they did not use the language of the defense
argument which stated that because the Africans were brought into the free states of New York and Connecticut
they were legally free. (Wiecek, 41-43)
3. One-sentence Summary:
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Declaration of Independence
Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842 U.S. Supreme Court case)
This case dealt with the constitutionality of personal liberty
laws in free states. In this case Pennsylvania's 1826 law was
used to prosecute a slave-catcher (Prigg) who had taken
Margaret Moran to Maryland without the required
"certificate of removal." The Supreme Court held that the
Pennsylvania act was unconstitutional and that a master
had the right to recapture runaway slaves based on common
law or because of the fugitive-slave clause in the
Constitution.
4. One-sentence Summary:
Handbill encouraging people to
catch slaves and return them to their
owners.
Strader v. Graham (1851 U.S. Supreme Court case)
In this case two slave musicians were taken into Ohio and then later escaped from Kentucky to
Canada. The slave-owner captured them back and it was argued in court that they were freed the
minute they set foot on free soil. The Kentucky Court of Appeals decided in favor of the slave-owner
(it was really a suit for damages by the slave-owner against the men who had aided the slaves in their
escape.) The Supreme Court dismissed the case stating it lacked jurisdiction (authority) because the
Northwest Ordinance did not apply to Ohio because it was superseded by state law, thus the case did
not present a federal question. Taney's opinion in this case outlined the idea that once the slaves
were returned to Kentucky, Kentucky law applied and Ohio law could not be considered.
5. One-sentence Summary:
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Declaration of Independence
Naturalization Act of 1802
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled That any alien being a free white
person may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States or any of them on the following conditions and not otherwise
First That he shall have declared on oath or affirmation before the supreme superior district or circuit court of some one of the states or
of the territorial districts of the United States . . . three years at least before his admission that it was . . . his intention to become a citizen
of the United States and to renounce for ever [sic] all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince potentate state or sovereignty. . . .
Secondly That he shall at the time of his application to be admitted declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts
aforesaid that he will support the constitution of the United States and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all
allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince potentate state or sovereignty. . . .
Thirdly That the court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the United States five years at least and within
the state or territory where such court is at the time held one year at least and it shall further appear to their satisfaction that during that
time he has behaved as a man of a good moral character attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States. . . .
SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who
previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the
said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to
the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States and the children of persons
who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States be
considered as citizens of the United States provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never
resided within the United States
6. One-sentence Summary:
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Declaration of Independence
Missouri Compromise
7. One-sentence Summary:
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Declaration of Independence
Compromise of 1850
Popular Sovereignty – People could vote to determine whether or not they wanted slavery
8. One-sentence Summary:
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Declaration of Independence
Procedure for Case Essay:
Your 2-4 page essay (double-spaced and at least five paragraphs)
should be written on Google Docs and should fully cover the
following five steps (Use bullet-points in the graphic organizer below
to plan out your response):
Step I:
Explain the FACTS of your case. What happened? Give
enough detail so the justices understand what your case is
about. Include who, what, where, when, why, and how.
Questions
Old Supreme Court Room
Your Reponses
Who?
What?
Where?
When?
Why?
Step II:
State the ISSUE in your case. This must be in the form of a question. This is the question that the
court will be answering. Make sure that your question has a mix of facts and law. Most lawyers will
start writing their ISSUE with “whether or not.” For example, an issue might be: “Whether or not a
student has a first amendment right to freedom of speech in school?”
Issue
Amendment
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Declaration of Independence
Step III:
Explain your PRECEDENT case. Lawyers use past cases (also called precedent cases) to help them
with their arguments. A precedent case helps justices see how other courts or justices ruled in similar
cases in the past. Precedent helps justices decide cases in a way that helps keep the law predictable.
When you use a precedent case you should be able to explain the facts of the precedent case, what the
court decided in that case, and how you think that case helps you.
Case/Compromise
History of Case/Compromise
How it Supports Your Case
Step IV:
This is where you give your persuasive ARGUMENT. Provide detail from the facts, your precedent,
and your knowledge of history and the law to convince the court that your position in the case is
right and is best for America. Think about justice, fairness, and the values & ideals of the U.S.
Facts
Precedent
History of Law
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Declaration of Independence
Step V: This is where you give your CONCLUSION. This must be a final strong summary of what
you want the court to do. It should be clear, concise, and convincing.
Points
Rationale
Supreme Court Justices
who presided over the Dred
Scott Case
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Declaration of Independence
Questions the Justices May Ask/Possible Answers:
T
he job of the Supreme Court Justices is to review the laws of the
country to determine whether they are constitutional. To make
their decision, they will be asking you probing questions about
specific aspects of your case to figure out if your arguments match the
laws of the country. To prepare for this questioning you need to review
your case and determine where the weak points are. Keep in mind the
Supreme Court case we began with and the questions the Justices were
asking. (What is the definition of a particular word? What is your
evidence? How is this relevant? What would happen if?) To prep for the
questions, start by looking back at the You Should Have to Prove page,
the Precedent/Compromise section of your essay, and then think of any miscellaneous questions you
might encounter.
Complete the charts below to help you during the trial:
You Should Have to Prove:
Point
A
B
C
D
Potential Question
Possible Response
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Declaration of Independence
Precedent/Compromise:
Name of
Precedent/Compromise
Potential Question
Possible Response
Miscellaneous Questions:
Topic
(e.g. people have the right to
property)
Potential Question
Potential Response