DRED SCOTT MOCK TRIAL
DRED SCOTT; SUMMARY ROLE SHEET OF PARTICIPANTS –
Remember each of you has information given to you in class (prior to the start of
the trial.) Everyone who has not been assigned as a lawyer will serve as
paralegals for them. They will do any research to help the cause.
Attorneys for the Plaintiff (Dred Scott) – 4 people will be the attorneys. Each
Attorney will work with one of there own witnesses to create questions. Each
attorney must cross examine one of the opposition’s witnesses. Each Attorney
must hand in the questions they created as well as an opening statement or a
closing statement.
Attorneys for the Defense (Sanford and Missouri) - 4 people will be the attorneys.
Each Attorney will work with one of there own witnesses to create questions.
Each attorney must cross examine one of the opposition’s witnesses. Each
Attorney must hand in the questions they created as well as an opening
statement or a closing statement.
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES – Must formally write and hand in their opinions
in the case. Chief Justice will run the court room.
Clerk of the Court – (must also be a court reporter)
WITNESSES
Phineas Loker – Pro slavery minister who knows Dred Scott
John C. Calhoun – Southern authority on the constitution
Mrs. Emerson Chaffee - owner of Dred Scott
Dred Scott - a slave
John Logan - army officer
Mr. Calvin Chaffee – Married to the woman who owns Dred Scott
Daniel Webster – Northern authority on the constitution
William Johnson – Judge from the state of Missouri
Each witness must work with lawyers from their side to create questions they will
be asked. They should also prepare for a cross examination. Each witness will
also serve as a reporter for the case and must hand in a news report of the event
(from the perspective of one of the regional papers).
As reporters you should write your article from the perspective of one of the
following papers:
1. The Liberator: This paper is the voice of the abolitionists. The
editorial would be slanted to make slavery look evil and all those in favor of
slavery evil. Dred Scott would be treated like a hero.
2. The Charleston Gazette: This paper would be Pro-Southern. The
editorial would be slanted to support Sanford and the state of Missouri.
Northerners who would abolish slavery would be treated as villains.
3. The New York Times: This paper deals with facts and does not
attempt to support one side or the other.
In writing your editorial you should point out the highlights of the day.
(Example: lawyers opening statements, statement of a particular witness, some
incident in the court.) You should slant the incident to your point of view.
Instead of writing a report you may elect to be a:
COURTROOM ARTIST
Individuals with artistic talent may elect to draw sketches of the trial as it
progresses and post them on the bulletin board for the other classes to view. A
series of sketches for each session should depict the action of the day in the
court. Each drawing should have a caption and your name.
CARTOONIST
Individuals may elect to draw political cartoons concerning key issues in
the trial. These cartoons can be original or they can be adopted from published
newspaper cartoons. Each cartoon should have a caption and your name.
FACT SHEET
Dred Scott vs Stanford
Dred 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.
There were two main legal questions in this case:
1. Was Dred Scott a citizen of the United States and therefore entitled to
bring suit in the federal courts?
2. Was he free as a result of having lived in a territory where slavery was
outlawed by the Missouri Compromise? Did living in a free state and free
territory make him free?
ATTORNEY FOR DRED SCOTT – PLAINTIFF
I. Read the fact sheet thoroughly. You will be given a copy of all facts on each
witness in the case.
2. Your case should rest on the fact that Dred Scott, a Negro slave from Missouri,
has been taken by his owner to the free state of Illinois and later to the free soil
Territory of "Wisconsin. You have brought suit in the Supreme Court of the
United States claiming that residence in a free territory automatically ended Dred
Scott's slave status.
3. You must present enough evidence, mainly by questioning witnesses, to
persuade the court to deliver a verdict against the owners of Dred Scott. Your job
consists of four main parts:
a. an opening statement to the court -- no more than 5 minutes to explain
the case to the court and give them a summary of the important facts.
b. direct examination of your witnesses -- questions are asked to each of
your witnesses to bring out the facts which support your case.
c. cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party -- your aim is to
get admissions from an opposing witness that will help your client's case
d. a closing argument -- 5 minutes to summarize the points made by the
witnesses which help your case
4. YOU SHOULD ATTEMPT TO PROVE:
a. The residence of Dred Scott in a free state, Illinois. Slavery is outlawed in that
state.
b. The residence of Dred Scott in the Territory of Wisconsin. Slavery is outlawed
in that territory by the Missouri Compromise of 1820 by an act of Congress. Read the
section on the Compromise in your history book, if you are not sure of this issue.
c. Negroes 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
Negroes were slaves.
d. The phraseology of the Declaration of Independence includes Negroes in its
meaning, therefore Negroes have all the rights of native born citizens.
5. YOUR OPPOSITION WILL ATTEMPT TO PROVE:
a. Federal courts do not have jurisdiction over Dred Scott, 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.
ATTORNEY FOR JOHN SANFORD AND THE STATE OF MISSOURI—
DEFENDANT
1. Read the fact sheet thoroughly. You will be given a copy of all facts on each witness
in the case.
2. Your case should rest on the fact that the federal courts do not have
jurisdiction in this case because Dred Scott was not a citizen of the United States
and could not be one. Also each state has the right to determine, for itself, the
status of a slave - regardless of temporary residence in other areas.
3. You must present enough evidence, mainly by questioning witnesses to
persuade the court to deliver a verdict against Dred Scott. Your job consists of
four main parts:
a. an opening statement to the court -- 5 minutes to explain the case to the
court and give them a summary of the important facts.
b. direct examination of your witnesses -- questions are asked to each of
your witnesses to bring out the facts which support your case.
c. cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party -- your aim is to
get admissions from the opposing witness that will help your client's case.
d. a closing argument -- 5 minutes to summarize the points made by the
witnesses. which help your case.
4. YOU SHOULD ATTEMPT TO PROVE:
a. Federal courts do not have jurisdiction 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).
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.
5. YOUR OPPOSITION WILL ATTEMPT TO PROVE:
a. The residence of Dred Scott in the free state of Illinois.
b. The residence of Dred Scott in the Territory of Wisconsin. Slavery is
outlawed in
that territory by the Missouri Compromise of 1820 by act of Congress.
c. Negroes 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 phraseology of the Declaration of Independence includes Negroes
in its meaning, therefore Negroes have all the rights of native born citizens.
WITNESS -- DANIEL WEBSTER, NORTHERN SENATOR
You will be called by Dred Scott's lawyers as an expert on the Constitution. You have
been a United States Senator for over 30 years. You are from Massachusetts, and you are
a leader in the movement against the spread of slavery.
The following are questions that could be asked. Try to put these facts in your own words.
1. Is Dred Scott a citizen of the United States?
The Constitution does not deny citizenship to any person or group of persons. In
fact, the Bill of Rights, in Amendments 4, 5, and 6, uses the words "person," "people,"
and "accused." No one will argue that slaves are not "persons" or "people." They are
citizens as far as legal rights are concerned under the Constitution.
2. Can slaves sue in the federal courts of the United States?
Yes, any "person" may sue.
3. Many Southern lawyers claim that slaves were not, at the time the Constitution was
adopted, citizens of any state. Therefore, they have only the privileges that the
government of their state chooses to grant them. Is this true?
Negroes are entitled to United States citizenship and to trial by the federal courts,
since they were citizens in many Northern states when the Constitution was written; and
therefore, they were part of the body politic when the federal government was created.
4. Under the Missouri Compromise, slavery was forbidden in the federal territories north
of line 36 degrees 30 minutes. If a slave resided north of that line in a free federal
territory, would he be free? (Read about the Missouri Compromise in your text)
Definitely, he would be free; if Congress says no slavery can exist in a territory,
then a slave taken there can no longer be a slave. His residence in a free territory would
make him free.
5. The 5th Amendment states in part "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law." The Missouri Compromise by creating free
territory takes away a man's slave property without due process. Does Congress have the
right to do this?
Under Article VI, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution Congress is given the
power "to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other
property . belonging to the United States." Under this section of the Constitution,
Congress has the right to exclude slavery from certain federal territory.
6. If the State of Missouri says Dred Scott is a slave, and northern lawyers say Scott's
presence in free territory made him free, what happens when a state and federal law
conflict?
The National Supremacy clause of the Constitution stated in Article 6, states that
the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land." When federal and state law conflict,
federal law is supreme.
WITNESS -- JOHN C. CALHOUN, SOUTHERN SENATOR
You will be called by John Sanford and the State of Missouri as an expert on the
Constitution. You have been a Southern Senator, Vice President of the United States, and
Secretary of War. You have served the United States for 30 years.
The following are questions which you may be asked. Try to put these facts in your own
words.
1. Are slaves’ citizens of the United States under the Constitution?
The Constitution does not automatically make anyone a citizen. The giving of
citizenship has always been a state matter. The rights and privileges of citizenship are
only given by state governments and varies from state to state. (This trial is taking place
before the passage of the 14th Amendment which defines national citizenship)
2. Many Northern lawyers claim Negroes were citizens of most Northern states when the
Constitution was written. If this is true, Negroes are entitled to all the rights and
privileges guaranteed by the Constitution. The status of Negroes is not being discussed
here; the status of slavery is the issue. No slave had citizenship or took part in the
ratification of the Constitution. Slaves, when the constitution was written, were
considered property. Slaves have no rights under the federal Constitution and will never
have them, until that document is changed.
3. Is there any statement in the Constitution that would make slavery legal?
Yes! Article 4, Section I of the Constitution says. "Full faith and credit shall be
given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other
state." This means that if Dred Scott is a slave under the laws of Missouri, then other
states must respect those laws. Another example would be property or marriage contracts
made in one state must be honored in other states.
4. Did the fact that Dred Scott resided in free territory change his status from slave to
free?
The Constitution plainly protects property rights in the 5th Amendment. "No
person . . may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor
shall property be taken for public use without just compensation." The Missouri
Compromise could not take away property because it is a legislative act and not due
process of law. Dred Scott would have to be taken from his owner in a court proceeding.
Territories of the U.S. belong to all the people of this nation: to deny a man use or entry
into that territory because he carried or brought certain property would be
unconstitutional; to deny a man his property simply because he traveled with that
property in federal territory is clearly unconstitutional.
DRED SCOTT
Your name is Dred Scott, and you were born around 1795 in Virginia. At the time
of this trial you are 62 years old. All your life, you have worked for one person after
another. You have never received pay for your work and your masters have never
bothered to teach you to read and write. You have no particular skills, and you have
always done physical labor. In 1834, you were sold for $950 to an army doctor as a
servant. He took you from the plantation in Virginia to his home in Missouri. Shortly
after that he took you to an army post in Illinois; and in 1836, you were taken to Fort
Snelling in the Wisconsin Territory by your owner, Doctor Emerson. There, you were
allowed to marry. You and your wife had a child which was born in free territory.
In 1837 Doctor Emerson was ordered to return to Missouri by the army. At that
time you and your family were taken back to St. Louis, Missouri. You had wanted to stay
at Fort Snelling, but Captain Emerson forced you to return with him. You were told, if
you refused to go back, Captain Emerson would sell your wife and child. So you went
back. Several years after your return to Missouri, Doctor Emerson died. You became the
property of Mrs. Emerson and her brother John Sanford. Since that time, Mrs. Emerson
has moved to New York to be near her brother, and she has remarried to a Mr. Chaffee:
Since both of your owners live in a free state, they can not take you with them. They
decided to lease or rent you out to various owners. Most of your masters have been
reasonable, but several times you have been cruelly abused. Once you were beaten
severely by Mrs. Emerson Chaffee, and then you were put in jail. You have seen many
slaves, both male and female, cruelly whipped and beaten by owners for minor offenses.
You have also been at auctions and have seen the sale of slave families. Your greatest
fear is that your daughter will be sold and taken away from you and your wife.
In 1846, you and your friends were able to raise enough money to start a lawsuit
to gain freedom for you and your family. That trial and the many appeals have been
going on for ten years.
COLONEL JOHN LOGAN -- WITNESS FOR DRED SCOTT
You are Colonel John Logan, commanding officer of the United States Army's 30th
Medical Detachment. It is your responsibility to supervise medical facilities at various
forts in the northwestern United States. Under your orders, Captain Emerson was sent to
Rock Island, Illinois and then to Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin Territory. During
frequent inspection tours, you have visited in the home of Captain Emerson, and you are
familiar with his family. You are a witness to the fact that Dred Scott was in both places
for over a year.
You know that the Emerson’s bought Dred Scott from Elizabeth Blow for $950, in
1834. You also know that when you ordered Captain Emerson to Rock Island, Illinois, he
took Dred Scott along as his servant. In 1836 you transferred Captain Emerson to Fort
Snelling in the Wisconsin Territory, and you know that he took Dred Scott with him.
Being a pro-slavery Southerner, you can't understand all the intense feelings raised
against slavery. All the Blacks you have seen are lazy and show little intelligence. Most
of them lie and steal without any regrets. They act like children who are unable to care
for themselves or think on their own. You believe that free Blacks would undoubtedly
starve to death. Slavery gives the Blacks food, clothing, shelter, and someone to look
after them. You feel, if Dred Scott is given his freedom, he will starve or end up in jail.
MR. CALVIN CHAFFEE --WITNESS FOR DRED SCOTT
You will be called as a witness for Dred Scott. His lawyers wish to establish who owns
Dred Scott, and if the owners of Scott live in a state which has outlawed slavery. You are one of
the owners of Dred Scott, a slave. You married a widow of an army doctor named Emerson.
When Captain Emerson died, he left Dred Scott to his wife and her brother, John Sanford, in a
trust which stated that Dred Scott could not be sold or given away. After the death of her first
husband, Mrs. Emerson had moved to New York to be near her brother. It was there that you met
and married Mrs. Emerson. Since the owners of Dred Scott could not take him to a free state, he
was leased to a family in Missouri. For the past ten years Scott has worked in Missouri for a
number of owners. Your wife and her brother share the money they receive from those who lease
Scott. You are a United States Congressman from New York. The people of your district are very
much opposed to slavery and so are you. You hope that the courts will free Scott; in fact, you
have provided some of the money for his defense. You once said in a speech: "American slavery
reduced man, created in the Divine image, to property. It made him a beast of burden in the field
of toil, an outcast in social life, a cipher in the courts of law, and a stranger in the house of God.
To claim himself, or to sue himself for his own benefit or the benefit of wife or child, was
deemed a crime. His master could dispose of his person at will, and of everything acquired by his
enforced and unending toil." As a witness, you must oppose slavery every chance you are given.
MRS. EMERSON CHAFFEE--WITNESS FOR SANFORD AND MISSOURI
You will be called as a witness for the defense. You are part owner of the slave
Dred Scott. You and your brother became owners of Dred Scott when your first husband,
Captain Emerson died. In your husband's will, Dred Scott was given in a trust, which
prevents you from selling him, or giving him away.
Captain Emerson purchased Dred Scott in 1834 as a servant. Since your husband
was an army doctor, you and your family have lived at a number of army posts. In 1834,
Captain Emerson was sent to Illinois, and in 1836 he was transferred to Fort Snelling in
the Wisconsin Territory. During this tour of duty, Dred Scott accompanied you and your
husband. At Fort Snelling your husband allowed Scott to marry. While they were in the
free territory of Wisconsin, Scott and his wife had their first child. In 1837, when the
army transferred Captain Emerson back to Missouri, Dred Scott objected to returning to
slave territory, but in the end he accompanied you back to St. Louis. He has worked for
your family for over 18 years since returning from Wisconsin.
You feel that Dred Scott came back to Missouri (a slave state) of his own free will.
Since the death of your first husband, Dr. Emerson, and your remarriage, Scott has been
nothing but a problem. He refuses to work in the fields, he is lazy, and he often spends
his time loafing. In recent years you have "hired him out" to other families, but he never
stays long because he won't work. You have had him beaten twice and imprisoned once,
but this does not seem to help. .'
You feel that the institution of slavery is necessary, since Blacks are like children
and must constantly be supervised. You feel that without slavery most Blacks would
starve to death or turn to crime. You know your present husband, Mr. Chaffee disagrees
with this point of view, but he has never lived in the South.
JUDGE WILLIAM JOHNSON -- WITNESS FOR SANFORD AND MISSOURI
You are the highest ranking judge in the State of Missouri. You will be called to testify
for the State of Missouri and John Sanford. Since you are a state judge, you are only
familiar with the court decisions about Dred Scott in your state. You are not an expert on
federal law or the United States Constitution, and you know nothing about the Dred Scott
case in the federal courts.
In 1850, the Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri (a lower court serving a county) held
that Dred Scott had become free by living in free territory. That court gave Dred Scott his
freedom. The case was appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, over which you are the
Chief Justice. Your court ruled that there could be no trial because under Missouri law,
slaves were not citizens, and as non-citizens they could not bring suit in the courts of
Missouri; therefore, you dismissed the case and ordered Dred Scott returned tohis masters.
You feel, that since Dred Scott has lived in Missouri for 18 years after his return from
free territory, Missouri has jurisdiction over him. The temporary residence of this slave in
a Free State and free territory did not change his status. You feel that laws of Illinois and
the Missouri Compromise do not apply in this case, since Dred Scott returned to Missouri
and he has lived in your state most of his adult life. Because he lives in Missouri, he is
subject to the laws of the state, and your state views him as property, not a citizen.
REVEREND PHINEAS LOKER -- WITNESS FOR SANFORD AND MISSOURI
You are the minister of a large church in St. Louis, Missouri. You are familiar with the
slave Dred Scott, because he has done yard work around the church for a number of years.
You also knew Scott's owner, Captain Emerson and his family, because they attended
your church after their return from the Indian Wars in 1838. You know that Northern
Abolitionists have hired lawyers for Dred Scott, and that he is attempting to get his
freedom through the courts. You feel that Scott should not have his freedom for two
reasons.
First, you know that he came back from free territory with Captain Emerson and his
family to a slave state, and that after his return he worked for them as a slave in Missouri
for 8 years before he attempted to get his freedom. Secondly, you believe that slavery is
justified by the Bible and should be continued, because the Bible is the word of God.
Your education has made it clear to you that God intended for there to be two classes -the rulers and the masses. It was true in Biblical times, and it is true today. It is your
opinion that the Whites should rule and the Blacks should stay in their place. The Blacks,
by their very nature, are best suited to work and serve others; and the Whites, by their
nature, are, suited to think and make the decisions that will carry society nearer to God.
You believe that since the Black race has the mentality of children, it is the mission of the
White race to guide and direct them. If the Black race becomes unruly and obstinate, it is
the duty of the White race to be firm and even punish them as a father would to return to
the path of righteousness. In your mind it is very clear: Dred Scott should stay in his
place as a slave.