Dred Scott v. Sanford
1857
Missouri Compromise Decision;
Citizenship for Blacks
History of the Case
Dred Scott and his wife, Harriet, were
slaves of Dr. John Emerson, an army
physician who was stationed in various
western posts. Dr. Emerson was billeted
to Fort Snelling, in what is now
Minnesota and also to the military post at
Rock Island in the state of Illinois. Both
of these military posts are north of the
Missouri Compromise Line. Harriet Scott
was formerly owned by a Major
Taliaferro, who sold her in 1835 to Dr.
Emerson. In 1836, Dred and Harriet were
married with the consent of Dr.
Emerson. The Scotts had two children,
Eliza and Lizzie. Eliza was born on the
steamboat Gipsey on the Mississippi River
above the boundary of Missouri. Lizzie
was born in the state of Missouri at the
military post called Jefferson Barracks
History of the Case (cont.)
History of the Case (cont.)
After Dr. Emerson left military
service, he returned to Missouri. After
Dr. Emerson’s death, Emerson’s
widow subsequently hired out the
Scotts for labor and at some point the
Scotts acquired sufficient money to
attempt to purchase their freedom.
Mrs. Emerson refused, and the Scotts
brought a suit to the circuit court of
the state of Missouri for their
freedom. The circuit court granted
them permission to sue.
In 1850, the jury found in favor of
the Scotts.
QUESTIONS
• How might this jury’s decision
have impacted slaveholders?
• If you had been Dr. Emerson’s
widow, would you have filed a
request for an appeal to the
Missouri Supreme Court?
History of the Case (cont.)
Counsel for Mrs. Emerson
appealed to the Missouri Supreme
Court.
In March 1852, that Court ruled
2 to 1 against Dred Scott and his
family in the case of Scott, A Man of
Color v. Emerson (15 Mo. 576), which
argued that the hiring of a slave for
two days in a free state would
entitle the slave to sue for freedom.
Former cases held that the act of
setting foot upon free soil was
sufficient for freedom, and intent
had no impact upon the freedom
issue.
There were many precedents in Missouri law upholding
the "once free, always free" judicial practice. There was the
cornerstone case of Winny v. Whitesides (1824), which held
that a person held in slavery in Illinois then brought to
Missouri was entitled to freedom based on that residence.
That decision was followed just a few years later by Merry v.
Tiffin & Menard (1827) which held that residence in any
territory where slavery was prohibited by the Northwest
Ordinance of 1787 worked a slave's freedom. The validity
of the Northwest Ordinance slavery prohibition was
upheld by the Missouri Supreme Court in their 1828
decision in LaGrange v. Chouteau and again in Theoteste alias
Catiche v. Chouteau (1829). That residence in Illinois worked
a slave's freedom was upheld in numerous Court decisions,
including Julia v. McKinney (1833) Nat v. Ruddle (1834) and
Wilson v. Melvin (1837). The fact that Dr. Emerson was
resident at a military post did not prevent emancipation,
according to the Court's 1837 determination in Rachel v.
Walker. Between 1837 and 1846, there were no new
decisions made by the Missouri Supreme Court to overturn
the clearly-established doctrine of "once free, always free."
Decision of Missouri Supreme
Court, 1852
In a decision that clearly recognized the political climate, Justice
William Scott wrote that it was “a humiliating spectacle to see a court of a
state confiscate the property of her own citizens by the command of a foreign
law.” Justice Scott acknowledged the political climate and declared
that it was time to end the “black vomit” that was becoming an
epidemic in the Missouri territory. Justices Scott and Ryland
determined that they would not suffer to have the old laws
enforced, and that it was entirely unreasonable to liberate slaves
under the argument that the mere touching of soil of a free state
entitled them to their freedom.
The justices of the Missouri Supreme Court further argued that
the consequences of slavery are…
“…more hurtful to the masters than to the slaves. There is no
comparison between the slave in the United States and the cruel,
uncivilized Negro in Africa. When the condition of our slaves is
contrasted with the state of their miserable race in Africa; when
their civilization, intelligence, and instruction is considered, and
the means now employed to restore them to the country from
which they have been torn, bearing with them the blessings of
civilized life, we are almost persuaded that their introduction
amongst us was in the providence of God who makes the evil
passions of men subservient to his own glory, a means of placing
that unhappy race with the pale of civilized nations.”
- Justice William Scott & Justice Ryland
Dissenting Opinion of Justice
Campbell
Justice Campbell departed from the opinion of the
majority of the court with regard to the freedom of Dred
Scott and family. He felt that a review of the case law of
Missouri and of the neighboring slave states clearly held
that a slave held in servitude was entitled to freedom when
setting foot upon free territory.
Justice Campbell however objected to the taking of
property, for example, the slave, by action of Congress. He
felt that people outside of the state of Missouri had no right
to interfere with the institution of slavery or the domestic
laws of the state. He agreed with the other two justices on
the invalidity of the Missouri Compromise.
From State to Federal Court
Scott and his lawyers then brought his case to a federal court, the United States
Circuit Court in Missouri. The defendant in this case was Mrs. Emerson's
brother, John Sanford, who had assumed responsibility for John Emerson's
estate. As a New York resident and technically beyond the jurisdiction of the
state court, Scott's lawyers can only file a suit against Sanford in the federal
judicial system.
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 main issues for the U.S. Supreme Court to
decide were whether it had jurisdiction to try the
case and whether Scott was indeed a citizen.
Members of U.S. Supreme Court in 1856
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.
The Taney Court
Chief Justice
Roger B. Taney
Key Questions for the U.S.
Supreme Court (cont.)
Was John Sanford’s attorney correct when he argued that
the Missouri Compromise of 1820 had violated the United
States Constitution?
“The individual is guaranteed certain rights when on trial and the right to life,
liberty and property. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment [formal charge] or indictment of a
grand jury, except in cases arising in the naval forces, or in the militia, when in
actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use [i.e. by eminent domain] without just compensation.” –
- Amendment V. of U.S. Constitution
Key Questions for the U.S.
Supreme Court
The case had arrived at the U.S. Supreme Court on the premise that
Scott and Sanford were citizens of different states or had “diversity
of citizenship”. The court had to determine whether that rule
applied in this case.
Chief Justice Taney’s Decision
“Can a Negro whose ancestors were
imported into this country and sold as
slaves become a member of the political
community which was formed and brought
into existence by the Constitution of the
United States?”