The Dred Scott Case
The Story of Dred Scott
Slavery, was still a widespread and divisive practice in 1857. But the supreme court was about to deliver a ruling, which would further divide the county. Dred Scott was born at the beginning of the 19th century, like any human, he had loves, hopes and dreams. He wished to live the American Dream, have a loving family, and a stable income. However the color of his skin saw Dred born in bondage. His owner was Dr. John Emerson, who was an army surgeon. He found himself traveling with his owner to various state, many of which did not permit the institution of slavery. While traveling, Dred found his true love, Harriet and they were married. After his owner died, he sought to buy his freedom. But his new owner, Emerson’s wife refused, and hired Dred out.
The Lawsuits Begin
Dred wanted out, and he had an ace up his sleeve. He and his wife Harriet, had resided in several northern states with his previous master. Dred argued that meant he was free, as slavery was illegal in those states. The lawsuit’s began in 1846, and it would take 11 years for a conclusive answer to be found. Around this time, Scott was sold to John Sanford. As Scott’s case began to climb the legal ladder different verdicts were served. Some favored Scott, saying he was free. Others defended his owner, Mr. Sanford claiming he was still his slave, and could not sue for his freedom. As the case reached the Supreme Court two major issues, surrounding this case became crystal clear.
A. Were African-Americans U.S. citizens?
B. Did congress have the authority to abolish slavery?
Today we can all agree on the answer’s to this question. The answer to both of these questions today is yes. But back then it was not as simple, many Americans saw Black’s as subhuman, due to a pseudoscientific belief that certain races were more superior than others. This kind of thinking went up. Many Supreme Court Justices and Politician’s believed slaves should be held in bondage or at least have little to no rights. But opposition was growing, both economic and moral. The early 19th Century didn’t just see the rise of the cotton gin, leading to a larger slave industry. But it also saw the rise of American Evangelical Christians. These Christians saw the practice of slavery as abhorrent. They began growing in numbers, and by the 1850’s many northerners were Abolitionists, who wished to abolish slavery. Southern Slave owners saw this growing philosophy and fought back, by sending Pro-Slave politicians to the halls in Washington.
Now with this divisive institution on America’s mind, one case had the power to destroy it or make it constitutionally invincible. Let’s meet the justices.
- Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney was a former Attorney General and Cabinet Minister from Maryland, A member of the Democratic Party he held Pro-Slavery and Racist Views.
- Justice James Moore Wayne was a former member of congress from Georgia. Like Taney, he was a democrat.
- Justice John Catron, was also a politically active democrat. He was a Tennessee Lawyer and a slave owner.
- Justice Peter Vivian Daniel was a Democratic Judge from Virginia.
- Justice Samuel Nelson was a democratic lawyer from New York before serving on the Supreme Court.
- Justice Robert Cooper Grier was a democratic organizer in Pennsylvania, before being awarded a Supreme Court Seat.
- Justice John Archibald Campbell was a Democratic Lawyer from Alabama.
- Justice John McLean was a Ohio Republican who had served on the Supreme Court since 1829, before that he was Postmaster General under President Monroe and Quincy Adams.
- Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis, was the only justice who was a clear abolitionist, as a Boston lawyer his clients were often slaves seeking their freedom. He was a republican.
The court announced it’s decision in March 1857.
Majority against Liberty
7 of the 9 Justices sided with Sandford, Scott’s owner. This decision has gone down as one of the most infamous decisions ever cast by the court. Chief Justice Taney wrote this terrible opinion, his decision laid on two arguments.
- The constitution permitted the slave trade until 1808.
- Congress could not take away any property, including human property.
Chief Justice Taney wrote a lengthy argument, in which he in effect made slavery legal nationwide. Here is a small excerpt,
“The language used in the Declaration of Independence shows that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as [citizens].
They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race; they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic.
And these two provisions show, conclusively, that neither [slaves], nor their descendants, were embraced in any of the other provisions of the Constitution; for certainly these two clauses were not intended to confer on them or their posterity the blessings of liberty, or any of the personal rights so carefully provided for the citizen.
Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court that [Dred Scott] is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution. As Scott was a slave when taken into the State of Illinois by his owner, and was there held as such, and brought back in that character, his status, as free or slave, depended on the laws of Missouri, and not of Illinois.
The rights of private property have been guarded with equal care. Thus the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law. 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 offence against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.
Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void; and that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made free by being carried into this territory; even if they had been carried there by the owner, with the intention of becoming a permanent resident.”
Due to this, several laws became unconstitutional, notably, the Missouri Compromise. It also made clear that slaves and even free blacks had no rights, as they were not citizens. But not all justices agreed, Justice Curtis dissented.
He used a long forgotten document, the Articles of Confederation, to prove in fact Blacks were citizens. He writes, “To determine whether any free persons, descended from Africans held in slavery, were citizens of the United States under the [Articles of Confederation], and consequently at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, it is only necessary to know whether any such persons were citizens of [any] of the States under the Confederation at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
Of this there can be no doubt. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens.” This proved Chief Justice Taney’s argument was heavily flawed.
Anger in the North, Joy in the South
News quickly spread of the court’s decision, only the second time they had marked a law as unconstitutional. Southerner’s were ecstatic, the Southerner Enterprise wrote.
“We regard the decision of the Judges of the Supreme Court in this case with the highest satisfaction. It meets with our hearty, cordial, unqualified approval. The highest judicial tribunal in the land has decided that the Africans are not citizens of the United States. This decision must be followed by other decisions and regulations in the individual States themselves. Negro suffrage must, of course, be abolished everywhere and is only a matter of time.”
Southerners agreed with Taney seeing this as a victory. They believed an abolitionist plot had been foiled. Southerners long believed that Blacks were not citizens and never should be. And so in the south, victory was proclaimed.
It was not as peachy in the North, with Abolitionist’s enraged, a disgruntled Albany writer writes, “The conspiracy is nearly completed. The Legislation of the Republic is in the hands of this handful of Slaveholders. The United States Senate assures it to them. The Executive power of the Government is theirs. Buchanan took the oath of service to them on the steps of the Capitol last Wednesday. The body which gives the supreme law of the land, has just acceded to their demands, and dared to declare that under the charter of the Nation, men of African descent are not citizens of the United States and can not be — that the Ordinance of 1787 was void — that the Missouri Compromise was void — that human Slavery is not a local thing, but pursues its victims to free soil, clings to them wherever they go, and returns with them — that the American Congress has no power to prevent the enslavement of men in the National Territories — that the inhabitants themselves of the Territories have no power to exclude human bondage from their midst — and that men of color can not receive justice in the Courts of the United States!” This was seen by Abolitionists, as a huge setback, the Supreme Court sided with the south. And they were furious, calling for a violent abolition of slavery, and a certain John Brown, tried to do this, but failed at Harper’s Ferry. When he was executed a pro-slavery playwright stood watching his execution. You can only imagine his thought, his hatred of the “Yankees” and “Negro Lovers”. This man’s name was John Wilkes Booth, the same one, who in 1865 ended President Lincoln’s life.
