|
Black
Courage Foundation -- Developing a Black
History Museum in DC,
with BCF Galleries in every major American city and selected
cities internationally.
In the Federal Judicial
System
In entering
the federal judicial system, the Scott case underwent a
metamorphosis that would prove to be very important at the
conclusion of the case. Most evident was the change in the
defendant. Mrs. Emerson had moved to Massachusetts and
remarried, leaving Scott and his case to her brother, John
F.A. Sanford, still living in St. Louis. Also, the Scott v.
Emerson case in the state judicial system was clearly a
genuine suit between two parties; each side's purpose was to
win the case. The same cannot be said of Scott v. Sandford.
"Dred Scott v. Sandford," wrote Don Fehrenbacher,
"was either a genuine suit, or a counterfeit designed
for abolitionist purposes, or part of a proslavery plot that
succeeded." This uncertainty over the true purpose of
the case later made Republican charges that the case was a
conspiracy designed to help the expansion of slavery even
easier to believe.
Whatever the true intents of the two parties were, they met
in 1854 in the United States Circuit Court. Judge Robert W.
Wells, "a slaveholder who nevertheless regarded slavery
as a barrier to progress," presided over the trial.
Sanford's first strategy was to prove that Scott was not a
citizen of Missouri because he was the descendant of African
slaves, but Wells ruled that because he resided in Missouri,
Scott was enough of a citizen to be able to bring suit in a
federal court. Sanford then used the same line of reasoning
that had worked in front of the Missouri Supreme Court,
arguing that even if Scott had gained his freedom while
residing in Illinois, he had regained his slave status upon
returning to Missouri. This defense proved successful once
again, and the jury decided in favor of Sanford.
The next step for Scott was to take his case to the highest
tribunal in the country, the United States Supreme Court.
Before he did so, however, he needed to find a suitable
attorney. Fortunately, Montgomery Blair--a Missourian
himself, a highly respected lawyer in Washington, and a
supporter of the Free Soil party--agreed to take Scott's
case without expecting payment. The Supreme Court first
heard the case of Scott v. Sandford in early 1856, but
ordered a re-argument for the next term, perhaps because a
decision would have come on the eve of the 1856 presidential
election and would have forced each candidate to agree or
disagree with the Court on a highly volatile issue. This
would not be the last time politics intruded on the Dred
Scott case.
Until it came before the Supreme Court, Scott's case had not
attracted much attention, either public or within the other
branches of government. By early 1856, however, Congress had
renewed the debate over Congressional power to regulate
slavery in the territories in light of the bloody conflicts
in Kansas. Both sides began to view the issue as a decision
for the Supreme Court, and not for Congress, to make. As
Senator Albert G. Brown, a Democrat from Mississippi, said
on July 2, 1856:
My friend from Michigan [Senator Lewis Cass] and myself
differ very widely as to what are the powers of a
Territorial Legislature - he believing that they can
exercise sovereign rights, and I believing no such thing; he
contending that they have a right to exclude slavery, and I
not admitting the proposition; but both of us concurring in
the opinion that it is a question to be decided by the
courts, and not by Congress.
A few weeks later, Abraham Lincoln, a Republican from
Illinois agreed:
I grant you that an unconstitutional act is not a law; but I
do not ask, and will not take your [Democrats'] construction
of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States
is the tribunal to decide such questions, and we will submit
to its decisions; and if you do also, there will be an end
of the matter.
"When re-argument [of the case] before the Court began
on December 15," wrote Kenneth Stampp, "the
potentially broad political significance of the case had
become evident, and public interest in it had increased
considerably." Indeed, "by Christmas 1856, Dred
Scott's name was probably familiar to most Americans who
followed the course of national affairs."
*****************************************************
When the U. S. Supreme
Court met for the first time since the re-argument to
discuss the case on February 14, 1857, it favored a moderate
decision that ruled in favor of Sanford but did not consider
the larger issues of Negro citizenship and the
constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. The majority
chose Justice Nelson as the writer of a decision that
avoided these important but highly controversial issues, and
Nelson went to work on it. When Nelson presented his opinion
to the majority, however, he discovered that his
"majority" opinion turned out to be the opinion of
only himself. The Court elected to throw out Nelson's
decision and instead chose Chief Justice Roger B. Taney as
the writer of the true majority opinion for the court, an
opinion that would include everything under consideration in
the case, including Negro citizenship and the
constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. According to
Justice Catron, one of the members of the majority,
"the court majority. . .had been `forced up' to its
change of plan by the determination of [Justices] Curtis and
McLean to present extensive dissenting opinions discussing
all aspects of the case." The majority decided
that if the dissenters covered all the issues, they must
also. Ironically, the two most antislavery justices may have
forced a more proslavery opinion than what the majority
originally planned to decide.
By mid-February 1857, many well-informed Americans were
aware that the conclusion of the Scott v. Sandford case was
close at hand. President-elect James Buchanan contacted some
of his friends on the Supreme Court starting in early
February; he asked if the Court had reached a decision in
the case, for he needed to know what he should say about the
territorial issue in his inaugural address on March 4. By
inauguration day 1857, Buchanan knew what the outcome of the
Supreme Court's decision would be and took the opportunity
to throw his support to the Court in his inaugural address:
A difference of opinion has arisen in regard to the point of
time when the people of a Territory shall decide this
question [of slavery] for themselves.
This is, happily, a matter of but little practical
importance. Besides, it is a judicial question, which
legitimately belongs to the Supreme Court of the United
States, before whom it is now pending, and will, it is
understood, be speedily and finally settled. To their
decision, in common with all good citizens, I shall
cheerfully submit, whatever this may be.
Just two days after Buchanan's inauguration, on March 6,
1857, the nine justices filed into the courtroom in the
basement of the U.S. Capitol, lead by Chief Justice Taney.
Taney was almost 80 years old, always physically feeble, and
even weaker as a result of the effort he had put forth to
write the two-hour-long opinion; therefore, he spoke in a
low voice that Republicans deemed appropriate for such a
"shameful decision." He first addressed the
question of Negro citizenship, not only that of slaves but
also that of free blacks:
 |
Can a Negro, whose ancestors were imported into this
country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the
political community formed and brought into existence by the
Constitution of the United States, and as such become
entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities,
guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen? |
One of the privileges reserved for citizens by the
Constitution, argued Taney, was the "privilege of suing
in a court of the United States in the cases specified by
the Constitution." Taney's opinion stated that Negroes,
even free Negroes, were not citizens of the United States,
and that therefore Scott, as a Negro, did not even have the
privilege of being able to sue in a federal court. Taney
then turned to the question of the constitutionality of the
Missouri Compromise. The territories acquired from France in
the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, Taney stated, were dependent
upon the national government, and the government could not
act outside its framework as set forth in the Constitution.
Congress, for example, could not deny the citizens of the
new territory freedom of speech. Similarly, Congress could
not deprive the citizens of the territory of "life,
liberty, or property without due process of law,"
according to the Fifth Amendment. Taney continued:
And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen 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.
The Constitution made no distinction between slaves and
other types of property. Taney reasoned that the Missouri
Compromise deprived slaveholding citizens of their property
in the form of slaves and that therefore the Missouri
Compromise was unconstitutional. Scott's case had one last
hope: the Chief Justice could decide that Scott was free
because of his stay in the free state of Illinois. Taney
made no such decision, instead stating that "the status
of slaves who had been taken to free States or territories
and who had afterwards returned depended on the law of the
State where they resided when they brought suit." Scott
had brought suit in Missouri and hence he was still a slave
because Missouri was a slave state. Taney ruled that the
case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and sent back to
the lower court with instructions for that court to dismiss
the case for the same reason, therefore upholding the
Missouri Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Sanford.
* Cozzens, Lisa. "Brown v. Board of Education."
African American
History. Lisa
Cozzen's Web Site (25 May 1998).
--------------------
DRED SCOTT: A CHRONOLOGY --------------------
* 1799 Dred Scott is born in Virginia as a slave of the Peter Blow family. He spent his life as a slave, and never learned to read or write.
* 1803 United States purchases Louisiana from France, extending federal sovereignty to an ill-defined territory west of the Mississippi.
* 1804 United States takes formal possession of what is now Missouri.
* 1820 After fierce debate, Congress admits Missouri as a slave state. The question of Missouri statehood sparks widespread disagreement over the expansion of slavery. The resolution, eventually known as the Missouri Compromise, permits Missouri to enter as a slave state along with the free state of Maine, preserving a balance in the number of free and slave states. The Compromise also dictates that no territories above 36o 30' latitude can enter the union as slave states. Missouri itself is located at the nexus of freedom and slavery. The neighboring state of Illinois had entered the union as a free state in 1819, while in subsequent years Congress admits Arkansas as a slave state and Iowa as a free state.
* 1830 The Blow family moves to St. Louis, part of the wholesale migration of people from the southern states of the eastern seaboard to the newer slave states of the Mississippi Valley. The Blows sell Scott to Dr. John Emerson, a military surgeo n stationed at Jefferson Barracks just south of St. Louis. Over the next twelve years Scott accompanies Emerson to posts in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory, where Congress prohibited slavery under the rules of the Missouri Compromise. During this ti me, Scott marries Harriet Robinson, also a slave. The Scotts later have two children. The Scotts are not alone in this movement. Slaves are constantly on the move, either forced to accompany their masters or sold as part of the ever-widening domestic s lave trade. Slave states and free states, which had previously respected one another's laws on slavery, become increasingly hesitant to enforce those laws as the argument over the expansion of slavery becomes increasingly heated. Slaveholders express pa rticular opposition to legal precedents that permit slaves to demand their own freedom after being transported to places (whether other states or foreign countries) that prohibit slavery.
* 1842 The Scott family returns to St. Louis with Dr. Emerson and his wife Irene.
* 1843 John Emerson dies. Mrs. Emerson hires out Dred, Harriet, and their children to work for other families in St. Louis.
* 1846 Dred and Harriet Scott sue Mrs. Emerson for their freedom in the St. Louis Circuit Court.
* 1847 The Circuit Court rules in favor of Mrs. Emerson, dismissing the Scotts' case but allowing the Scotts to refile their suit.
* 1850 The jury in a second trial decides that the Scotts deserve to be free, based on their years of residence in the non-slave territories of Wisconsin and Illinois.
* 1852 Mrs. Emerson, not wanting to lose such valuable property, appeals the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court. Lawyers on both sides agree that from now on appeals will be based on Dred's case alone, with findings applied equally to Harriet. The state Supreme Court overrules the Circuit Court decision and returns Scott to slavery.
* 1853-54 Scott, supported by lawyers who opposed slavery, files suit in the U.S. Federal Court in St. Louis. The defendant in this case is Mrs. Emerson's brother, John Sanford, who has assumed responsibility for John Emerson's estate. As a New Yor k 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. Again the court rules against Scott.
* 1856-1857 Scott and his lawyers appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Scott v. Sanford the Court states that Scott should remain a slave, that as a slave he is not a citizen of the U.S. and thus not eligible to bring suit in a federal court, and that as a slave he is personal property and thus has never been free.
The court further declares unconstitutional the provision in the Missouri Compromise that permitted Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories. In fact, the compromise is already under assault as a coalition of political leaders—some slaveholders, o thers westerners who resent the federal government's ability to dictate the terms of statehood—claim that territorial residents should be able to determine on what terms they enter the union. The decision in Scott v. Sanford greatly alarms the antislaver y movement and intensifies the growing division of opinion within the United State. The newly-formed Republican Party, which opposes the expansion of slavery, vigorously criticizes the decision and the court.
* 1857 Mrs. Emerson remarries. Since her new husband opposes slavery, she returns Dred Scott and his family to the Blow family. The Blows give the Scotts their freedom.
* 1858 Dred Scott dies of tuberculosis and is buried in St. Louis. He was buried in Wesleyan Cemetary at what is now the intersection of Grand and Laclede Avenues in St. Louis (now part of the campus of St. Louis University). In 1867, Wesleyan cemetary closed and the bodies were dis-interred and re-buried at other sites. Dred Scott's body was moved to an unmarked grave in Section 1, Lot No. 177, Calvary Cemetary, in north St. Louis County. In 1957 a marker was placed on Dred Scott's grave which reads: DRED SCOTT BORN ABOUT 1799 DIED SEPT. 17, 1858
DRED SCOTT SUBJECT OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
IN 1857 WHICH DENIED CITIZENSHIP TO THE NEGRO, VOIDED THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE ACT, BECAME ONE OF THE EVENTS THAT RESULTED IN THE CIVIL
WAR
* 1860 Abraham Lincoln is elected president in a political contest dominated by the discussion of slavery. South Carolina secedes from the Union, and the Civil War begins.
For more information, see:
* The Dred Scott Decision at the Jefferson Expansion Memorial website.
* The Old Courthouse at the Jefferson Expansion Memorial
* The Field Family history Roswell Martin Field served as the attorney for the slaves Dred and Harriet Scott and their daughters, Eliza and Lizzy, when they brought action in federal court for their freedom.
* The St. Louis Circuit Court Case Files at the Missouri State Archives
* Background of slave freedom suits in Missouri
* St Louis Court Records Project
* Law Professor Shines Light on 'Mrs. Dred Scott'
* Judgment in the U.S. Supreme Court Case Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford, March 6, 1857
* Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) (USSC+) U.S. Supreme Court Collection at the Legal Information Institute |
