Plaintiff
Dred Scott
Defendant
John F. A. Sanford
Plaintiff's Claim
That Scott, who was a slave, had become a free man when his owner had taken him to a state designated as "free" under the 1820 Missouri Compromise.
Chief Lawyers for Plaintiff
Samuel M. Bay, Montgomery Blair, George Ticknor Curtis, Alexander P. Field, Roswell M. Field, David N. Hall
Chief Defense Lawyers
Hugh A. Garland, H. S. Geyer, George W. Goode, Reverdy Johnson, Lyman D. Norris
Justices for the Court
John Archibald Campbell, John Catron, Peter Vivian Daniel, Robert Cooper Grier, Samuel Nelson, Roger Brooke Taney (writing for the Court), James Moore Wayne
Justices Dissenting
Benjamin Curtis, John McLean
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
6 March 1857
Decision
That Dred Scott was still a slave, regardless of where his owner took him.
Significance
The Dred Scott decision effectively ended the Missouri Compromise, hardeningthe political rivalry between North and South and paving the way for Civil War.
Dred Scott was born in Virginia sometime in the late 1790s, although historical records concerning the exact time and place are incomplete. Because Scottwas black and born into slavery, no one at the time would have taken much interest in such details.
Scott's owner was Peter Blow, who owned a reasonably successful plantation. In 1819, Blow took his family and several slaves, including Scott, to Alabamato start a new plantation. Blow grew tired of farming, and in 1830 moved to St. Louis, Missouri. St. Louis was then a booming frontier town, and Blow opened a hotel. Both Blow and his wife became seriously ill and died.
Scott's travels westward in a sense mirrored the expansion of the United States during this time period. From the original 13 states on the Atlantic Seaboard, American colonists had pushed to the Mississippi River and beyond. Thisexpansion gave rise to serious political problems. Southern states wanted tobring slavery and the plantation lifestyle into the new territories, whereasthe Northern states wanted to keep the territories free. Both sides were afraid that, when portions of the territories were eventually admitted as states,the other side would gain political supremacy in Congress owing to the new states' senators and representatives. In 1820, the North and the South strucka deal called the Missouri Compromise. Missouri was admitted to the union asa slave state and Maine was admitted as a free state, preserving the political balance in Congress. Further, slavery was forbidden in any territory northof, but permitted in any territory south of, Missouri's northern border at approximately 36 degrees latitude north.
After the Blows' deaths, their estate sold Scott to an army doctor named JohnEmerson. Emerson took Scott with him during tours of duty in Illinois and inthat part of the Wisconsin and Iowa Territories which would become Minnesota. Both Illinois and Minnesota were within the free territory of the MissouriCompromise. Emerson returned to St. Louis and died 29 December 1843. He lefteverything, including Scott, to his wife and appointed as executor his wife'sbrother, John F. A. Sanford.
Scott Sues for Freedom
Tired of a lifetime of slavery, Scott tried to buy his freedom from the widowEmerson, without success. Scott had acquired more education than most slavesand realized that his travels into a free territory might give him a claim to freedom. Represented by former Missouri Attorney General Samuel M. Bay, on6 April 1846, Scott sued for his freedom in the Missouri Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis. Sanford and the widow Emerson were represented by GeorgeW. Goode. Because Sanford was the estate executor for Scott's former master,the official reports bear his name as the primary defendant, misspelled to read "Scott v. Sandford."
Legally, Scott's suit was for assault and false imprisonment. A slave could be punished and kept as property, but a free person could not, so the legal charges were in fact window dressing for the issue of Scott's freedom. On 30 June 1847, the case came to trial before Judge Alexander Hamilton. Bay committed a technical error in presenting the plaintiff's evidence, and the jury returned a verdict that same day in Emerson and Sanford's favor. Hamilton grantedBay's motion for a new trial, which was held on 12 January 1850, again before Judge Hamilton. This time, Scott's lawyers were Alexander P. Field and David N. Hall. Sanford had by this time completely taken over the widow Emerson'saffairs and retained Hugh A. Garland and Lyman D. Norris for the defense.
At the second trial, the jury held that Scott was a free man, based on certain Missouri state court precedents that held that even though Missouri was a slave state, residence in a free state or territory resulted in a slave's emancipation. Scott's freedom was short-lived, however.
Sanford appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court. After more than two years, Judge William Scott announced that court's decision on 22 March 1852. Scott reversed the jury verdict of the second trial, stating that Dred Scott was stilla slave. Although Judge Scott's decision was couched in legal terms concerning states' rights and the legality of slavery within Missouri's borders, in fact the real basis for the decision was the rise to power of pro-slavery Democrats on the court. Judge Scott justified the court's decision to reverse those legal precedents that supported Dred Scott's freedom by stating that blacks were destined to be slaves:
Scott Tries Federal Courts
Following the Missouri Supreme Court's decision, the case was sent back to Judge Hamilton in St. Louis, who was supposed to issue the final order dismissing the case and returning Scott to slavery. Hamilton procrastinated, however,which gave Scott time to hire a new lawyer and get his case into the federalcourts. Scott replaced Field and Hall. His new lawyer was Roswell M. Field,who was unrelated to the previous Field. The new Field realized that Sanfordhad moved to New York City, and was no longer a resident of Missouri. Therefore, Field initiated new proceedings on 2 November 1853, in federal court, under legal provisions that give federal courts jurisdiction over cases betweencitizens of different states. This principle is called "diversity jurisdiction," and is still valid today. Diversity jurisdiction enabled Scott, as a citizen of Missouri, to sue Sanford, as a citizen of New York, in federal court.The issue of Scott's freedom was now before Judge Robert W. Wells of the U.S.Court for the District of Missouri, located in St. Louis.
At the circuit court's 1854 April Term, Wells held that Scott was a Missouri"citizen" for diversity jurisdiction purposes, despite the fact of Scott's slavery. The case then went to trial, which was held on 15 May 1854. In this, Scott's third freedom trial, the jury ruled in Sanford's favor and held that Scott was still a slave. This was despite the fact that Wells, who was a Southerner, was sympathetic to Scott's cause. Field promptly appealed to the U.S.Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. He convinced the distinguished lawyer Montgomery Blair to represent Scott before the Supreme Court, although Scott was virtually penniless.
Blair, who also was originally from Missouri, had successfully pursued political and legal ambitions in Washington. His residence was the now-famous BlairHouse on Pennsylvania Avenue. Blair was assisted by George Ticknor Curtis. With the assistance of Southern pro-slavery interests, who recognized the potential importance of the Scott case, Sanford also retained some very eminent lawyers. Sanford was represented before the Supreme Court by former Senator Henry S. Geyer, who like Blair had come from Missouri and made a name for himself as a Washington lawyer. Geyer was assisted by former Senator and U.S. Attorney General Reverdy Johnson, who was a personal friend of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.
Victory for Slavery, Defeat for Scott
The Scott case was filed with the Supreme Court on 30 December 1854, and set for oral argument on the Court's February 1856 Term. The political makeup of the Court weighed heavily in its eventual decision. Southern and pro-slavery justices had a clear majority. Campbell was from Alabama. Catron was from Tennessee. Curtis was from Massachusetts, but was sympathetic to the South. Daniel was from Virginia. Grier was from Pennsylvania, but he was a conservative states' rights advocate. McLean, from Ohio, was the only openly anti-slavery justice on the Court. Nelson was from New York, but like Grier he wasa defender of states' rights and lukewarm to the anti-slavery cause. Taney, the chief justice, was from Maryland and the leader of the Court's Southern majority. Finally, Wayne was from Georgia. The justices also were conscious ofthe fact that 1856 was an election year, and that the Scott decision would have important political consequences.
During the 1856 February Term, the justices listened to the parties' arguments for three days. Scott's attorneys presented the "free soil" argument, one favored by Northern abolitionists: once a slave stepped into a free state or territory, he or she was emancipated, or else the power to prohibit slavery was meaningless. Sanford's attorneys presented the states' rights argument, which favored the institution of slavery: Scott had been a slave in Missouri, hehad returned to Missouri, and had subjected himself to the jurisdiction of Missouri law and Missouri courts. Therefore, Missouri was entitled to declareScott a slave, and ignore the fact that Scott would not be a slave elsewhere.
Not surprisingly, most of the justices were in favor of rejecting Scott's freedom plea. However, they could not agree on the proper legal grounds. Some justices wanted to hold that a slave could not sue in federal court, other justices wanted to discuss congressional power to prohibit slavery in the territories and the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. The justices decided to postpone their decision until after the presidential election and ordered Scott's and Sanford's lawyers to re-argue the case during the Court's 1856December Term.
In November of 1856, Democrat James Buchanan was elected president. Buchanan,indifferent to the slavery issue, would sit idly by over the next four yearswhile the country was split into North and South and headed toward the CivilWar. After the second round of oral argument in December, during which the parties reiterated the same basic positions, Chief Justice Taney announced themajority of the Court. Taney and six other justices voted to hold that Scottwas still a slave. Taney refused to recognize any rights for blacks as citizens under the U.S. Constitution:
From this holding, Taney went on to state that Scott was a slave wherever hewent, and could be reclaimed at any time by his lawful owner under that provision of the Constitution that forbids Congress from depriving Americans of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. Taney held that Scott was "property" and therefore the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional:
Scott was a slave once again, and the South had won an important victory. TheMissouri Compromise, which had preserved the political status quo for nearly40 years, was swept away. The North would eventually prevail and abolish slavery, but it would do so only after many battles of a much different and bloodier nature during the Civil War.
Related Cases
Test Cases
The Supreme Court frowns on test cases, or "friendly" suits. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney once described "friendly" suits as an example of "contempt of the court, and highly reprehensible." Justice David J. Brewer wrote, "It neverwas the thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the Legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to constitutionality of the legislative Act."
Clearly there has been no justification in the court's eyes, as Brewer noted,for any attempt to reverse the constitutional vote of a legislature by meansof a test case. There was another practical reason behind his statement: thejustices are only human and can review only so many cases per session.
A famous example of a test case was Roe v. Wade (1973), which legalized abortion. By the time the case came before the court, "Roe" (Norma McCorvey) had long since given birth to her baby; nonetheless, she agreed to participate in a case to test an 1859 Texas abortion statute.
Sources
Biskupic, Joan and Witt, Elder. Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, thirdedition Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1997.
The Missouri Compromise
When Missouri applied for admittance to the Union in 1819, the United Stateswas equally divided between free and slave states, with 11 of each. Since slavery already existed in Missouri Territory, it sought admission as a slave state, which infuriated New England abolitionists and other opponents of slavery. Southerners were equally incensed when a ban on the importation of slaveswas suggested as a precondition for Missouri's statehood.
Henry Clay of Kentucky offered a compromise: since Maine had also requested admission to the Union, he proposed that Missouri enter as a slave state and Maine be admitted as a free state. The existing parity between free and slavestates would remain. Moreover, according to the proposal which became the Missouri Compromise, an imaginary line would be drawn at the 36 degrees, 30 minutes north parallel--the southern boundary of Missouri. No territory above that line could be admitted as a slave state, and no territory below it could enter as a free state.
The Missouri Compromise was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, which introduced popular sovereignty over the slavery issue.
Sources
Hurwitz, Howard L. An Encyclopedic Dictionary of American History NewYork: Washington Square Press, 1974.
Dred Scott
Defendant
John F. A. Sanford
Plaintiff's Claim
That Scott, who was a slave, had become a free man when his owner had taken him to a state designated as "free" under the 1820 Missouri Compromise.
Chief Lawyers for Plaintiff
Samuel M. Bay, Montgomery Blair, George Ticknor Curtis, Alexander P. Field, Roswell M. Field, David N. Hall
Chief Defense Lawyers
Hugh A. Garland, H. S. Geyer, George W. Goode, Reverdy Johnson, Lyman D. Norris
Justices for the Court
John Archibald Campbell, John Catron, Peter Vivian Daniel, Robert Cooper Grier, Samuel Nelson, Roger Brooke Taney (writing for the Court), James Moore Wayne
Justices Dissenting
Benjamin Curtis, John McLean
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
6 March 1857
Decision
That Dred Scott was still a slave, regardless of where his owner took him.
Significance
The Dred Scott decision effectively ended the Missouri Compromise, hardeningthe political rivalry between North and South and paving the way for Civil War.
Dred Scott was born in Virginia sometime in the late 1790s, although historical records concerning the exact time and place are incomplete. Because Scottwas black and born into slavery, no one at the time would have taken much interest in such details.
Scott's owner was Peter Blow, who owned a reasonably successful plantation. In 1819, Blow took his family and several slaves, including Scott, to Alabamato start a new plantation. Blow grew tired of farming, and in 1830 moved to St. Louis, Missouri. St. Louis was then a booming frontier town, and Blow opened a hotel. Both Blow and his wife became seriously ill and died.
Scott's travels westward in a sense mirrored the expansion of the United States during this time period. From the original 13 states on the Atlantic Seaboard, American colonists had pushed to the Mississippi River and beyond. Thisexpansion gave rise to serious political problems. Southern states wanted tobring slavery and the plantation lifestyle into the new territories, whereasthe Northern states wanted to keep the territories free. Both sides were afraid that, when portions of the territories were eventually admitted as states,the other side would gain political supremacy in Congress owing to the new states' senators and representatives. In 1820, the North and the South strucka deal called the Missouri Compromise. Missouri was admitted to the union asa slave state and Maine was admitted as a free state, preserving the political balance in Congress. Further, slavery was forbidden in any territory northof, but permitted in any territory south of, Missouri's northern border at approximately 36 degrees latitude north.
After the Blows' deaths, their estate sold Scott to an army doctor named JohnEmerson. Emerson took Scott with him during tours of duty in Illinois and inthat part of the Wisconsin and Iowa Territories which would become Minnesota. Both Illinois and Minnesota were within the free territory of the MissouriCompromise. Emerson returned to St. Louis and died 29 December 1843. He lefteverything, including Scott, to his wife and appointed as executor his wife'sbrother, John F. A. Sanford.
Scott Sues for Freedom
Tired of a lifetime of slavery, Scott tried to buy his freedom from the widowEmerson, without success. Scott had acquired more education than most slavesand realized that his travels into a free territory might give him a claim to freedom. Represented by former Missouri Attorney General Samuel M. Bay, on6 April 1846, Scott sued for his freedom in the Missouri Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis. Sanford and the widow Emerson were represented by GeorgeW. Goode. Because Sanford was the estate executor for Scott's former master,the official reports bear his name as the primary defendant, misspelled to read "Scott v. Sandford."
Legally, Scott's suit was for assault and false imprisonment. A slave could be punished and kept as property, but a free person could not, so the legal charges were in fact window dressing for the issue of Scott's freedom. On 30 June 1847, the case came to trial before Judge Alexander Hamilton. Bay committed a technical error in presenting the plaintiff's evidence, and the jury returned a verdict that same day in Emerson and Sanford's favor. Hamilton grantedBay's motion for a new trial, which was held on 12 January 1850, again before Judge Hamilton. This time, Scott's lawyers were Alexander P. Field and David N. Hall. Sanford had by this time completely taken over the widow Emerson'saffairs and retained Hugh A. Garland and Lyman D. Norris for the defense.
At the second trial, the jury held that Scott was a free man, based on certain Missouri state court precedents that held that even though Missouri was a slave state, residence in a free state or territory resulted in a slave's emancipation. Scott's freedom was short-lived, however.
Sanford appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court. After more than two years, Judge William Scott announced that court's decision on 22 March 1852. Scott reversed the jury verdict of the second trial, stating that Dred Scott was stilla slave. Although Judge Scott's decision was couched in legal terms concerning states' rights and the legality of slavery within Missouri's borders, in fact the real basis for the decision was the rise to power of pro-slavery Democrats on the court. Judge Scott justified the court's decision to reverse those legal precedents that supported Dred Scott's freedom by stating that blacks were destined to be slaves:
We are almost persuaded that the introduction of slavery amongst [Americans] 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 within the pale of civilized nations.
Scott Tries Federal Courts
Following the Missouri Supreme Court's decision, the case was sent back to Judge Hamilton in St. Louis, who was supposed to issue the final order dismissing the case and returning Scott to slavery. Hamilton procrastinated, however,which gave Scott time to hire a new lawyer and get his case into the federalcourts. Scott replaced Field and Hall. His new lawyer was Roswell M. Field,who was unrelated to the previous Field. The new Field realized that Sanfordhad moved to New York City, and was no longer a resident of Missouri. Therefore, Field initiated new proceedings on 2 November 1853, in federal court, under legal provisions that give federal courts jurisdiction over cases betweencitizens of different states. This principle is called "diversity jurisdiction," and is still valid today. Diversity jurisdiction enabled Scott, as a citizen of Missouri, to sue Sanford, as a citizen of New York, in federal court.The issue of Scott's freedom was now before Judge Robert W. Wells of the U.S.Court for the District of Missouri, located in St. Louis.
At the circuit court's 1854 April Term, Wells held that Scott was a Missouri"citizen" for diversity jurisdiction purposes, despite the fact of Scott's slavery. The case then went to trial, which was held on 15 May 1854. In this, Scott's third freedom trial, the jury ruled in Sanford's favor and held that Scott was still a slave. This was despite the fact that Wells, who was a Southerner, was sympathetic to Scott's cause. Field promptly appealed to the U.S.Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. He convinced the distinguished lawyer Montgomery Blair to represent Scott before the Supreme Court, although Scott was virtually penniless.
Blair, who also was originally from Missouri, had successfully pursued political and legal ambitions in Washington. His residence was the now-famous BlairHouse on Pennsylvania Avenue. Blair was assisted by George Ticknor Curtis. With the assistance of Southern pro-slavery interests, who recognized the potential importance of the Scott case, Sanford also retained some very eminent lawyers. Sanford was represented before the Supreme Court by former Senator Henry S. Geyer, who like Blair had come from Missouri and made a name for himself as a Washington lawyer. Geyer was assisted by former Senator and U.S. Attorney General Reverdy Johnson, who was a personal friend of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.
Victory for Slavery, Defeat for Scott
The Scott case was filed with the Supreme Court on 30 December 1854, and set for oral argument on the Court's February 1856 Term. The political makeup of the Court weighed heavily in its eventual decision. Southern and pro-slavery justices had a clear majority. Campbell was from Alabama. Catron was from Tennessee. Curtis was from Massachusetts, but was sympathetic to the South. Daniel was from Virginia. Grier was from Pennsylvania, but he was a conservative states' rights advocate. McLean, from Ohio, was the only openly anti-slavery justice on the Court. Nelson was from New York, but like Grier he wasa defender of states' rights and lukewarm to the anti-slavery cause. Taney, the chief justice, was from Maryland and the leader of the Court's Southern majority. Finally, Wayne was from Georgia. The justices also were conscious ofthe fact that 1856 was an election year, and that the Scott decision would have important political consequences.
During the 1856 February Term, the justices listened to the parties' arguments for three days. Scott's attorneys presented the "free soil" argument, one favored by Northern abolitionists: once a slave stepped into a free state or territory, he or she was emancipated, or else the power to prohibit slavery was meaningless. Sanford's attorneys presented the states' rights argument, which favored the institution of slavery: Scott had been a slave in Missouri, hehad returned to Missouri, and had subjected himself to the jurisdiction of Missouri law and Missouri courts. Therefore, Missouri was entitled to declareScott a slave, and ignore the fact that Scott would not be a slave elsewhere.
Not surprisingly, most of the justices were in favor of rejecting Scott's freedom plea. However, they could not agree on the proper legal grounds. Some justices wanted to hold that a slave could not sue in federal court, other justices wanted to discuss congressional power to prohibit slavery in the territories and the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. The justices decided to postpone their decision until after the presidential election and ordered Scott's and Sanford's lawyers to re-argue the case during the Court's 1856December Term.
In November of 1856, Democrat James Buchanan was elected president. Buchanan,indifferent to the slavery issue, would sit idly by over the next four yearswhile the country was split into North and South and headed toward the CivilWar. After the second round of oral argument in December, during which the parties reiterated the same basic positions, Chief Justice Taney announced themajority of the Court. Taney and six other justices voted to hold that Scottwas still a slave. Taney refused to recognize any rights for blacks as citizens under the U.S. Constitution:
We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights andprivileges which that instrument provides for and secures to the citizens ofthe United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power andthe Government might choose to grant them.
From this holding, Taney went on to state that Scott was a slave wherever hewent, and could be reclaimed at any time by his lawful owner under that provision of the Constitution that forbids Congress from depriving Americans of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. Taney held that Scott was "property" and therefore the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional:
An Act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his 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.
Scott was a slave once again, and the South had won an important victory. TheMissouri Compromise, which had preserved the political status quo for nearly40 years, was swept away. The North would eventually prevail and abolish slavery, but it would do so only after many battles of a much different and bloodier nature during the Civil War.
Related Cases
- Stader v. Graham, 10 How. 82 (1851).
- Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506 (1859).
- Commonwealth v. Aves, 18 Pickering 193 (1936).
Test Cases
The Supreme Court frowns on test cases, or "friendly" suits. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney once described "friendly" suits as an example of "contempt of the court, and highly reprehensible." Justice David J. Brewer wrote, "It neverwas the thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the Legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to constitutionality of the legislative Act."
Clearly there has been no justification in the court's eyes, as Brewer noted,for any attempt to reverse the constitutional vote of a legislature by meansof a test case. There was another practical reason behind his statement: thejustices are only human and can review only so many cases per session.
A famous example of a test case was Roe v. Wade (1973), which legalized abortion. By the time the case came before the court, "Roe" (Norma McCorvey) had long since given birth to her baby; nonetheless, she agreed to participate in a case to test an 1859 Texas abortion statute.
Sources
Biskupic, Joan and Witt, Elder. Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, thirdedition Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1997.
The Missouri Compromise
When Missouri applied for admittance to the Union in 1819, the United Stateswas equally divided between free and slave states, with 11 of each. Since slavery already existed in Missouri Territory, it sought admission as a slave state, which infuriated New England abolitionists and other opponents of slavery. Southerners were equally incensed when a ban on the importation of slaveswas suggested as a precondition for Missouri's statehood.
Henry Clay of Kentucky offered a compromise: since Maine had also requested admission to the Union, he proposed that Missouri enter as a slave state and Maine be admitted as a free state. The existing parity between free and slavestates would remain. Moreover, according to the proposal which became the Missouri Compromise, an imaginary line would be drawn at the 36 degrees, 30 minutes north parallel--the southern boundary of Missouri. No territory above that line could be admitted as a slave state, and no territory below it could enter as a free state.
The Missouri Compromise was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, which introduced popular sovereignty over the slavery issue.
Sources
Hurwitz, Howard L. An Encyclopedic Dictionary of American History NewYork: Washington Square Press, 1974.
User Comments Add a comment…