text:
Dred Scott v. Sandford
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 24 January 2018.
Jump to: navigation, search
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 11–14, 1856
Reargued December 15–18, 1856
Decided March 6, 1857
Full case name
Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford[1]
Citations
60 U.S. 393 (more)
19 How. 393; 15 L. Ed. 691; 1856 WL 8721; 1857 U.S. LEXIS 472
Prior history
Judgment for defendant, C.C.D. Mo.
Holding
Judgment reversed and suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Const. Plaintiff is without standing to file a suit.
The Property Clause is only applicable to lands possessed at the time of ratification (1787). As such, Congress cannot ban slavery in the territories. Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional.
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from freeing slaves brought into federal territories.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Roger B. Taney
Associate Justices
John McLean · James M. Wayne
John Catron · Peter V. Daniel
Samuel Nelson · Robert C. Grier
Benjamin R. Curtis · John A. Campbell
Case opinions
Majority
Taney, joined by Wayne, Catron, Daniel, Nelson, Grier, Campbell
Concurrence
Wayne
Concurrence
Catron
Concurrence
Daniel
Concurrence
Nelson, joined by Grier
Concurrence
Grier
Concurrence
Campbell
Dissent
McLean
Dissent
Curtis
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V; Missouri Compromise
Superseded by
U.S. Const. amends. XIII, XIV
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), also known as the Dred Scott case, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law and constitutional law. It held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves",[2][3] whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[4][5] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved man of "the negro African race"[3] who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott's request. The decision was only the second time that the Supreme Court had ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.[6]
Although Taney hoped that his ruling would finally settle the slavery question, the decision immediately spurred vehement dissent from anti-slavery elements in the North, and proved to be an indirect catalyst for the American Civil War. It was functionally superseded by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1868, which gave African Americans full citizenship.
The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford is unanimously denounced by modern scholars. Many contemporary lawyers, and most modern legal scholars, consider the ruling regarding slavery in the territories to be obiter dictum and not a binding precedent. Bernard Schwartz says it "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions—Chief Justice C.E. Hughes called it the Court's greatest self-inflicted wound".[7] Junius P. Rodriguez says it is "universally condemned as the U.S. Supreme Court's worst decision".[8] Historian David Thomas Konig says it was "unquestionably, our court's worst decision ever".[5][9][10]
Contents
[hide]
1 Background
2 Procedural history
2.1 First attempt
2.2 Scott v. Emerson
2.3 Scott v. Sanford
2.4 Influence of President Buchanan
3 Supreme Court ruling
3.1 Opinion of the Court
3.2 Concurrence by Justice Nelson
3.3 Dissents by Justice Curtis and Justice McLean
4 Consequences
4.1 Economic
4.2 Political
5 Reaction
6 The Scott family's fate
7 Sanford as defendant
8 Later references
9 Legacy
10 See also
11 Notes
12 Further reading
13 External links
Background[edit]
Main article: Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Events leading to
the American Civil War
Slavery
Northwest Ordinance
Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions
Battle of Negro Fort
Missouri Compromise
Tariff of 1828
Nat Turner's slave rebellion
Nullification Crisis
The Amistad
Prigg v. Pennsylvania
Texas annexation
Mexican–American War
Wilmot Proviso
Manifest destiny
Underground Railroad
Nashville Convention
Compromise of 1850
Fugitive Slave Act of 1850
Uncle Tom's Cabin
Kansas–Nebraska Act
Ostend Manifesto
Bleeding Kansas
Caning of Charles Sumner
Dred Scott v. Sandford
The Impending Crisis of the South
Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry
1860 presidential election
Crittenden Compromise
Secession of Southern States
Star of the West
Corwin Amendment
Battle of Fort Sumter
v
t
e
Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia in 1795. Little is known of his early years.[11] His owner, Peter Blow, moved to Alabama in 1818, taking his six slaves along to work a farm near Huntsville. In 1830, Blow gave up farming and settled in St. Louis, Missouri, where he sold Scott to U.S. Army surgeon Dr. John Emerson.[12] After purchasing Scott, Emerson took him to Fort Armstrong in Illinois. A free state, Illinois had been free as a territory under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and had prohibited slavery in its constitution in 1819 when it was admitted as a state.
In 1836, Emerson moved with Scott from Illinois to Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin territory in what has become the state of Minnesota. Slavery in the Wisconsin Territory (some of which, including Fort Snelling, was part of the Louisiana Purchase) was prohibited by the United States Congress under the Missouri Compromise. During his stay at Fort Snelling, Scott married Harriet Robinson in a civil ceremony by Harriet's owner, Major Lawrence Taliaferro, a justice of the peace who was also an Indian agent. The ceremony would have been unnecessary had Dred Scott been a slave, as slave marriages had no recognition in the law.[5][12]
In 1837, the army ordered Emerson to Jefferson Barracks Military Post, south of St. Louis, Missouri. Emerson left Scott and his wife at Fort Snelling, where he leased their services out for profit. By hiring Scott out in a free state, Emerson was effectively bringing the institution of slavery into a free state, which was a direct violation of the Missouri Compromise, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Wisconsin Enabling Act.[5]
Before the end of the year, the army reassigned Emerson to Fort Jesup in Louisiana, where Emerson married Eliza Irene Sanford in February, 1838. Emerson sent for Scott and Harriet, who proceeded to Louisiana to serve their master and his wife. While en route to Louisiana, Scott's daughter Eliza was born on a steamboat underway on the Mississippi River between Illinois and what would become Iowa. Because Eliza was born in free territory, she was technically born as a free person under both federal and state laws. Upon entering Louisiana, the Scotts could have sued for their freedom, but did not. Finkelman suggests that in all likelihood, the Scotts would have been granted their freedom by a Louisiana court, as it had respected laws of free states that slaveholders forfeited their right to slaves if they brought them in for extended periods. This had been the holding in Louisiana state courts for more than 20 years.[5]
Toward the end of 1838, the army reassigned Emerson to Fort Snelling. By 1840, Emerson's wife Irene returned to St. Louis with their slaves, while Dr. Emerson served in the Seminole War. While in St. Louis, she hired them out. In 1842, Emerson left the army. After he died in the Iowa Territory in 1843, his widow Irene inherited his estate, including the Scotts. For three years after John Emerson's death, she continued to lease out the Scotts as hired slaves. In 1846, Scott attempted to purchase his and his family's freedom, but Irene Emerson refused, prompting Scott to resort to legal recourse.[13]
Procedural history[edit]
First attempt[edit]
Having been unsuccessful in his attempt to purchase freedom for his family and himself, and with the help of abolitionist legal advisers, Scott sued Emerson for his freedom in a Missouri court in 1846. Scott received financial assistance for his case from the family of his previous owner, Peter Blow.[5] Blow's daughter Charlotte was married to Joseph Charless, an officer at the Bank of Missouri. Charless signed the legal documents as security for Dred Scott and secured the services of the bank's attorney, Samuel Mansfield Bay, for the trial.[12]
Scott based his legal argument on precedents such as Somersett v. Stewart, Winny v. Whitesides,[14] and Rachel v. Walker,[15] claiming his presence and residence in free territories required his emancipation. Scott's lawyers argued the same for Scott's wife, and further claimed that Eliza Scott's birth on a steamboat between a free state and a free territory had made her free upon birth.
It was expected that the Scotts would win their freedom with relative ease, since Missouri courts had previously heard more than ten other cases in which they had freed slaves who had been taken into free territory.[5] Furthermore, the case had been assigned to Judge Alexander Hamilton, who was known to be sympathetic to slave freedom suits.[12] Scott was represented by three lawyers during the course of the case because it was over a year from the time of the original petition filing to the trial. His first lawyer was Francis B. Murdoch, who was replaced by Charles D. Drake. When Drake left St. Louis in 1847, Samuel M. Bay took over as Scott's lawyer.[16] In June 1847, Scott lost his case due to a technicality: Scott had not proven that he was actually enslaved by Irene Emerson. At the trial, grocer Samuel Russell had testified that he was leasing Scott from Irene Emerson, but on cross-examination he admitted that the leasing arrangements had actually been made by his wife Adeline. Thus, Russell's testimony was ruled hearsay and the jury returned a verdict for Emerson.[12]
Scott v. Emerson[edit]
In December 1847, Judge Hamilton granted Scott a new trial. Emerson appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Missouri, which affirmed the trial court's order in 1848. Due to a major fire, a cholera epidemic, and two continuances, the new trial did not begin until January 1850. While the case awaited trial, Scott and his family were placed in the custody of the St. Louis County Sheriff, who continued to lease out the services of Scott and his family. The proceeds were placed in escrow, to be paid to Scott's owner or himself upon resolution of the case.
In the 1850 trial, Scott was represented by Alexander P. Field and David N. Hall, both of whom had previously shared offices with Charles Edmund LaBeaume, the brother of Peter Blow's daughter-in-law. The hearsay problem was surmounted by a deposition from Adeline Russell, stating that she had leased the Scotts from Emerson. The jury found in favor of Scott and his family. Unwilling to accept the loss of four slaves and a substantial escrow account, Emerson appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri, although by that point she had moved to Massachusetts and transferred ownership of Scott to her brother, John F. A. Sanford.
In November 1852, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the Scotts were still legally slaves and that they should have sued for freedom while living in a free state. Chief Justice William Scott declared:
Times are not now as they were when the former decisions on this subject were made. Since then not only individuals but States have been possessed with a dark and fell spirit in relation to slavery, whose gratification is sought in the pursuit of measures, whose inevitable consequences must be the overthrow and destruction of our government. Under such circumstances it does not behoove the State of Missouri to show the least countenance to any measure which might gratify this spirit. She is willing to assume her full responsibility for the existence of slavery within her limits, nor does she seek to share or divide it with others.[17]
Scott v. Sanford[edit]
At this point, the case looked hopeless, and the Blow family decided that they could no longer pay for Scott's legal costs. Scott also lost both of his lawyers, as Alexander Field had moved to Louisiana and David Hall had died. The case was now undertaken pro bono by Roswell Field, whose office employed Dred Scott as a janitor. Field also discussed the case with LaBeaume, who had taken over the lease on the Scotts in 1851.[18] Following the Missouri Supreme Court decision, Judge Hamilton turned down a request by Emerson's lawyers to release the rent payments from escrow and to deliver the slaves into their owner's custody.[12]
In 1853, Dred Scott again sued his current owner, John Sanford,[1] but now in federal court. Sanford had returned to New York, so the federal courts now had diversity jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. In addition to the existing complaints, Scott also alleged that Sanford had assaulted his family and held them captive for six hours on January 1, 1853.[19]
At trial in 1854, Judge Robert William Wells directed the jury to rely on Missouri law to settle the question of Scott's freedom. Since the Missouri Supreme Court had held that Scott remained a slave, the jury found in favor of Sanford. Scott then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the case was recorded as Dred Scott v. Sandford and entered history with that title. Scott was represented before the Supreme Court by Montgomery Blair and George Ticknor Curtis, whose brother Benjamin was a Supreme Court Justice. Sanford was represented by Reverdy Johnson and Henry S. Geyer.[12]
Influence of President Buchanan[edit]
Historians discovered that after the Supreme Court had heard arguments in the case but before it had issued a ruling, President-elect James Buchanan wrote to his friend, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice John Catron, asking whether the case would be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court before his inauguration in March 1857.[20] Buchanan hoped the decision would quell unrest in the country over the slavery issue by issuing a ruling that put the future of slavery beyond the realm of political debate.
Buchanan later successfully pressured Associate Justice Robert Cooper Grier, a Northerner, to join the Southern majority in Dred Scott to prevent the appearance that the decision was made along sectional lines.[21] Both by present-day standards and under the more lenient standards of the time, Buchanan's applying such political pressure to a member of a sitting court would be regarded as highly improper.[22] Republicans fueled speculation as to Buchanan's influence by publicizing that Chief Justice Roger B. Taney had secretly informed Buchanan of the decision before Buchanan declared, in his inaugural address, that the slavery question would "be speedily and finally settled" by the Supreme Court.[23][24]
Supreme Court ruling[edit]
Opinion of the Court[edit]
In a 7-2 decision penned by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Supreme Court held that it lacked Subject-matter jurisdiction by Article III's provision for diversity of citizenship because Scott was not a "citizen" in the relevant sense of the term and states could not naturalize as Article-III citizens the descendants of African slaves. Taney's majority opinion continued, in obiter dictum, to deem the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional and foreclose Congress from freeing slaves within Federal territories.
The principal holding that Scott was not an Article-III citizen was abrogated in 1868 by the Birthright Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[25] By opinining on the fate of the Missouri Compromise, the decision, in effect, became the second in U.S. history to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional. The prohibition on territories from freeing slaves was the first time the Supreme Court invoked the legal doctrine of substantive due process.[26]
Taney relied on historical analysis to support the Court's decision that Scott was not an Article-III citizen, and summarized the historical attitudes thusly:
[Black Africans imported as slaves] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.
Concurrence by Justice Nelson[edit]
Justice Samuel Nelson
Technically, Associate Justice Samuel Nelson did not concur in the judgment of the Supreme Court, for the formal judgment of that Court was that "the judgment [of the Circuit Court] for the defendant ... be reversed, and a mandate issued directing the suit [of plaintiff Scott] to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction", 60 U.S. at 454, whereas Nelson would have affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court, 60 U.S. at 469. However, in terms of the practical effect on Scott and his family, it was immaterial as to whether his case was to be dismissed, as ordered by the Court, or the judgment declaring on the merits that they were all still slaves be affirmed, as Nelson would have held. However, the legal theories of Nelson and the Court were very different. Nelson expressly declined to address the jurisdictional issue, but instead addressed the merits of Scott's case.
The Supreme Court, which addressed the merits in dictum, expressed the view that the federal statute which had prohibited slavery in the "Territory of Upper Louisiana" was unconstitutional. (At the time of Scott's sojourn this area was administered as the Wisconsin Territory. The term "Territory of Upper Louisiana" was used in Nelson's opinion and the formal Statement of the Case. However, that was the name used for the area during French administration, not the American administration.) Nelson found it unnecessary to reach this constitutional issue. To Nelson, the merits properly turned on a principle of states' rights. He assumed for purposes of argument that Scott might have been emancipated during his sojourn in Illinois and/or his sojourn in Upper Louisiana. In Nelson's view, however, each state that permitted slavery had the constitutional right to determine what effect it would give to any emancipation that might have occurred elsewhere once the Negro person had returned to that state.
A state might, as the State of Louisiana did for a period by court decision, decide to honor extraterritorial emancipation; or a state might, as the State of Missouri did when its Supreme Court reversed Scott's initial victory in the Missouri court, decide to nullify any extraterritorial emancipation and revive the slave status. Since the State of Missouri had clearly determined that it considered Scott still to be a slave, irrespective of any prior emancipation, that foreclosed the issue for Nelson, and the federal Circuit Court properly found him and his family to be slaves while they were in Missouri.
Dissents by Justice Curtis and Justice McLean[edit]
Justice John McLean was the senior justice of the two dissenting opinions.
Justice John McLean dissented, writing that there was no basis for the claim that blacks could not be citizens. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, black men could vote in five of the thirteen states. This made them citizens not only of their states but of the United States.[27] Therefore, Justice McLean concluded that the argument that Scott was not a citizen was "more a matter of taste than of law". In his dissent, Justice McLean cited as precedent Marie Louise v. Marot, an 1835 case in which Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice George Mathews Jr. ruled that "being free for one moment in France, it was not in the power of her former owner to reduce her again to slavery."[28]
Justice Curtis was the junior dissenting justice.
Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis, in dissent, attacked much of the Court's decision as obiter dicta, on the ground that once the Court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Scott's case, it must simply dismiss the action, and not pass judgment on the merits of the claims. The dissents by Curtis and McLean also attacked the Court's overturning of the Missouri Compromise on its merits, noting both that it was not necessary to decide the question, and also that none of the authors of the Constitution had ever objected on constitutional grounds to the United States Congress' adoption of the antislavery provisions of the Northwest Ordinance passed by the Continental Congress, or the subsequent acts that barred slavery north of 36°30' N.
Consequences[edit]
Part of a series on
Slavery
Contemporary[show]
Child labour
Conscription
Debt
Forced marriage
Bride buying
Wife selling
Forced prostitution
Human trafficking
Peonage
Penal labour
Sexual slavery
Wage slavery
Historical[show]
Antiquity
Ancient Rome
Babylonia
Ancient Greece
Topics and practices
Atlantic slave trade
Middle Passage
Arab slave trade
Ghilman
Mamluk
Saqaliba
Aztec
Blackbirding
Byzantine Empire
Coolie
Corvée labor
Field slaves in the United States
House slaves
Kholop
Medieval Europe
Panyarring
Thrall
Serfs
History
Russia
Slave market
Slave raiding
Naval
Galley slave
Impressment
Pirates
Shanghaiing
Slave ship
By country or region[show]
Sub-Saharan Africa
Contemporary Africa
Slavery on the Barbary Coast
Barbary slave trade
Slave Coast
Angola
Chad
Ethiopia
Mali
Mauritania
Niger
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Seychelles
North and South America
Americas indigenous
U.S. Natives
Brazil
Lei Áurea
Canada
Caribbean
Barbados
Code Noir
Cuba
Haiti
revolt
Restavek
Latin America
Puerto Rico
Trinidad
United States
colonial
maps
female
partus
penal labor
Slave codes
interregional
Human trafficking
Virgin Islands
Central, East, and South Asia
Human trafficking in Southeast Asia
Bhutan
China
Booi Aha
Laogai
India
Debt bondage
Chukri System
Japan
comfort women
South Korea
Yankee princess
North Korea
Vietnam
Australia and Oceania
Blackbirding in Australia
Human trafficking in Australia
Slave raiding in Easter Island
Human trafficking in Papua New Guinea
Blackbirding in Polynesia
Europe and North Asia
Sex trafficking in Europe
Britain
Denmark
Dutch Republic
Germany in World War II
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Spain
colonies
Sweden
North Africa and West Asia
Iran
Libya
Human trafficking in the Middle East
Ottoman Empire
Yemen
Religion[show]
Bible
Christianity
Catholicism
Mormonism
Islam
21st century
Judaism
Bahá'í Faith
Opposition and resistance[show]
Timeline
Abolitionism
U.K.
U.S.
Anti-Slavery International
Blockade of Africa
U.K.
U.S.
Compensated emancipation
Freedman
manumission
Freedom suit
Abolitionists
Slave Power
Underground Railroad
songs
Slave rebellion
Slave Trade Acts
International law
13th Amendment to the United States Constitution
Related[show]
Common law
Indentured servitude
Unfree labour
Fugitive slaves
laws
Great Dismal Swamp maroons
List of slaves
owners
Slave narrative
films
songs
Slave name
Slave catcher
Slave patrol
Slave Route Project
Treatment in U.S.
breeding
court cases
Washington
Jefferson
Adams
Lincoln
40 acres
Freedmen's Bureau
bit
Emancipation Day
v
t
e
Economic[edit]
Perhaps the most immediate business consequence of the decision was to help trigger the Panic of 1857. Economist Charles Calomiris and historian Larry Schweikart discovered that uncertainty about whether the entire West would suddenly become either slave territory or engulfed in combat like "Bleeding Kansas", immediately gripped the markets. The east–west railroads collapsed immediately (although north–south-running lines were unaffected), causing, in turn, the near-collapse of several large banks and the runs that ensued. What followed these runs has been called the Panic of 1857 and it differed sharply from the Panic of 1837, in that its effects were almost exclusively confined to the North. Calomiris and Schweikart found this resulted from the South's superior system of branch banking (as opposed to the North's unit banking system), in which the transmission of the panic was minor due to the diversification of the southern branch banking systems. Information moved reliably among the branch banks, whereas in the North, the unit banks (competitors) seldom shared such vital information.[29]
Political[edit]
The decision was hailed in Southern slaveholding society as a proper interpretation of the United States Constitution. According to Jefferson Davis, then a United States Senator from Mississippi, and later President of the Confederate States of America, the Dred Scott case was merely a question of "whether Cuffee should be kept in his normal condition or not".[30] At that time, "cuffee" was a term commonly used to describe a black person.[31]
Prior to Dred Scott, Democratic Party politicians had sought repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and were finally successful in 1854 with the passage of the Kansas–Nebraska Act. This act permitted each newly admitted state south of the 40th parallel to decide whether to be a slave state or free state. Now, with Dred Scott, the Supreme Court under Taney sought to permit the unhindered expansion of slavery into the territories.
The Dred Scott decision, then, represented a culmination of what many at that time considered a push to expand slavery. Southerners at the time, who had grown uncomfortable with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, argued that they had a right, under the federal constitution, to bring slaves into the territories, regardless of any decision by a territorial legislature on the subject. The Dred Scott decision seemed to endorse that view. The expansion of the territories and resulting admission of new states would mean a loss of political power for the North, as many of the new states would be admitted as slave states, and counting slaves as three-fifths of a person would add to the slave holding states' political representation in Congress.
Although Taney believed that the decision represented a compromise that would settle the slavery question once and for all by transforming a contested political issue into a matter of settled law, it produced the opposite result. It strengthened Northern opposition to slavery, divided the Democratic Party on sectional lines, encouraged secessionist elements among Southern supporters of slavery to make bolder demands, and strengthened the Republican Party.
Reaction[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Opponents of slavery fiercely attacked the Dred Scott decision. The Evening Journal of Albany, New York, combined two themes and denounced the decision as both an offense to the principles of liberty on which the nation was founded, and a victory for slave states over the free states:[32]
The three hundred and forty-seven thousand five hundred and twenty-five Slaveholders in the Republic, accomplished day before yesterday a great success — as shallow men estimate success. They converted the Supreme Court of Law and Equity of the United States of America into a propagandist of human Slavery. Fatal day for a judiciary made reputable throughout the world, and reliable to all in this nation, by the learning and the virtues of Jay, Rutledge, Ellsworth, Marshall and Story!
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 fealty 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 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 be suitors for justice in the Courts of the United States!
That editorial ended on a martial note:
All who love Republican institutions and who hate Aristocracy, compact yourselves together for the struggle which threatens your liberty and will test your manhood!
Many abolitionists and some supporters of slavery believed that Taney was prepared to rule, as soon as the issue was presented in a subsequent case, as for instance, Lemmon v. New York, that the states had no power to prohibit slavery within their borders and that state laws providing for the emancipation of slaves brought into their territory or forbidding the institution of slavery were likewise unconstitutional. Abraham Lincoln stressed this danger during his famous "House Divided" speech at Springfield, Illinois, on June 16, 1858:
Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits ... We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.
That fear of the next Dred Scott decision shocked many in the North who had been content to accept slavery as long as it was confined within its then present borders. It also put the Northern Democrats, such as Stephen A. Douglas, in a difficult position. The Northern wing of the Democratic Party had supported the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854 under the banner of popular sovereignty. They argued that even if Congress did not bar the expansion of slavery into those territories, the residents of those territories could prohibit it by territorial legislation. The Dred Scott decision squarely stated that they could not exercise such prohibition, even though, strictly speaking, that issue was not before the Court.
Without challenging the Court's decision directly, Douglas attempted to overcome that obstacle by creating his Freeport Doctrine. Douglas insisted that, even if a territory could not bar slavery outright, the institution could not take root without local police regulations to protect it and a territory could refuse to pass such local support.
This doctrine was wholly unacceptable to Southern Democrats, who reached a different conclusion from the same premise. They argued that if hostile territorial governments could obstruct their right to bring their slaves into a territory by refusing to protect that right, then Congress must intervene to pass a federal slave code for all the territories. They often coupled this position with threats to secede if Congress did not comply.
At the same time, Democrats characterized Republicans as lawless rebels, provoking disunion by their unwillingness to accept the Supreme Court's decision as the law of the land. Many Northern opponents of slavery offered a legalistic argument for refusing to recognize the Dred Scott decision as binding. As they noted, the Court's decision began with the proposition that the federal courts did not have jurisdiction to hear Scott's case because he was not a citizen of the State of Missouri. Therefore, so the opponents argued, the remainder of the decision concerning the Missouri Compromise was unnecessary (i.e., beyond the Court's power to decide) and therefore a passing remark rather than an authoritative interpretation of the law (i.e., obiter dictum). Douglas attacked this position in the Lincoln–Douglas debates:
Mr. Lincoln goes for a warfare upon the Supreme Court of the United States, because of their judicial decision in the Dred Scott case. I yield obedience to the decisions in that court — to the final determination of the highest judicial tribunal known to our constitution.
Democrats had previously refused to accept the Court's interpretation of the Constitution as permanently binding. During the Jackson administration, Roger B. Taney, working as Attorney General, wrote :
Whatever may be the force of the decision of the Supreme Court in binding the parties and settling their rights in the particular case before them, I am not prepared to admit that a construction given to the constitution by the Supreme Court in deciding any one or more cases fixes of itself irrevokably [sic] and permanently its construction in that particular and binds the states and the Legislative and executive branches of the General government, forever afterwards to conform to it and adopt it in every other case as the true reading of the instrument although all of them may unite in believing it erroneous.[33]
Southern supporters of slavery claimed that the Dred Scott decision was essential to the preservation of the union. As the Richmond Enquirer stated:
Thus has a politico-legal question, involving others of deep import, been decided emphatically in favor of the advocates and supporters of the Constitution and the Union, the equality of the States and the rights of the South, in contradistinction to and in repudiation of the diabolical doctrines inculcated by factionists and fanatics; and that too by a tribunal of jurists, as learned, impartial and unprejudiced as perhaps the world has ever seen. A prize, for which the athletes of the nation have often wrestled in the halls of Congress, has been awarded at last, by the proper umpire, to those who have justly won it. The "nation" has achieved a triumph, "sectionalism" has been rebuked, and abolitionism has been staggered and stunned. Another supporting pillar has been added to our institutions; the assailants of the South and enemies of the Union have been driven from their point d'appui; a patriotic principle has been pronounced; a great, national, conservative, union saving sentiment has been proclaimed.
While some supporters of slavery treated the decision as a vindication of their rights within the union, others treated it as merely a step to spreading slavery throughout the nation, as the Republicans claimed. Convinced that any restrictions on their right to own slaves and to take them anywhere they chose were unlawful, they boasted that the coming decade would see slave auctions on Boston Common. These Southern radicals were ready to split the Democratic Party and — as events showed — the nation on that principle.
Frederick Douglass, a prominent African-American abolitionist who thought the decision unconstitutional and the Chief Justice's reasoning contrary to the founders' vision, prophesied that political conflict could not be avoided:
The highest authority has spoken. The voice of the Supreme Court has gone out over the troubled waves of the National Conscience ... [But] my hopes were never brighter than now. I have no fear that the National Conscience will be put to sleep by such an open, glaring, and scandalous tissue of lies ...[34]
The Scott family's fate[edit]
Irene Emerson had moved to Massachusetts in 1850 and married Calvin C. Chaffee, a doctor and abolitionist who was elected to Congress on the Know Nothing and Republican tickets. Following the Supreme Court ruling, proslavery newspapers attacked Chaffee as a hypocrite. Chaffee protested that Dred Scott belonged to his brother-in law and that he had nothing to do with Scott's enslavement.[19] Nevertheless, the Chaffees executed a deed transferring the Scott family to Taylor Blow, son of Scott's former owner Peter Blow. Field suggested the transfer to Chaffee as the most convenient way of freeing Scott, as Missouri law required manumitters to appear in person before the Court.[19]
Taylor Blow filed the manumission papers with Judge Hamilton on May 26, 1857. The emancipation of Dred Scott and his family was national news and was celebrated in northern cities. Scott worked as a porter in a hotel in St. Louis, where he was a minor celebrity. His wife took in laundry.
Dred Scott died of tuberculosis only 18 months after attaining freedom, on November 7, 1858. Harriet died on June 17, 1876.[12]
Sanford as defendant[edit]
When the case was filed, the two sides agreed on a statement of facts that claimed Scott had been sold by Dr. Emerson to John Sanford. However, this was a legal fiction. Dr. Emerson had died in 1843, and Dred Scott had filed his 1847 suit against Irene Emerson. There is no record of Dred Scott's transfer to Sanford, or of his transfer back to Irene Chaffee. John Sanford died shortly before Scott's manumission, but Scott is not listed in the probate records of Sanford's estate.[18] Nor was Sanford acting as Dr. Emerson's executor, as he was never appointed by a probate court, and the Emerson estate had already been settled by the time the federal case was filed.[5]
Because of the murky circumstances surrounding ownership, it has been suggested that the parties to Dred Scott v. Sandford contrived to create a test case.[13][18][19] Mrs. Emerson's remarriage to an abolitionist Congressman seemed suspicious to contemporaries, and Sanford seemed to be a front who allowed himself to be sued despite not actually being Scott's owner. However, Sanford had been involved in the case since 1847, before his sister married Chaffee. He had secured counsel for his sister in the state case, and he engaged the same lawyer for his own defense in the federal case.[13] Sanford also consented to be represented by genuine pro-slavery advocates before the Supreme Court, rather than putting up a token defense.
Later references[edit]
Justice John Marshall Harlan was the lone dissenting vote in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which declared racial segregation constitutional and created the concept of "separate but equal". In his dissent, Harlan wrote that the majority's opinion would "prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott case."[35]
Charles Evans Hughes, writing in 1927 on the Supreme Court's history, described Dred Scott v. Sandford as a "self-inflicted wound" from which the Court would not recover for over a decade.[36][37]
In a memo to Justice Robert H. Jackson in 1952 (for whom he was clerking at the time) on the subject of Brown v. Board of Education, future Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that "Scott v. Sandford was the result of Taney's effort to protect slaveholders from legislative interference."[38]
Justice Antonin Scalia made the comparison between Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and Dred Scott in an effort to see Roe v. Wade overturned:
Dred Scott... rested upon the concept of "substantive due process" that the Court praises and employs today. Indeed, Dred Scott was very possibly the first application of substantive due process in the Supreme Court, the original precedent for... Roe v. Wade.[39]
Scalia noted that the Dred Scott decision, written and championed by Taney, left the justice's reputation irrevocably tarnished. Taney, while attempting to end the disruptive question of the future of slavery, wrote a decision that aggravated sectional tensions and was considered to contribute to the American Civil War.[40]
Chief Justice John Roberts compared Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) to the Dred Scott case, as another example of trying to settle a contentious issue through a ruling that went beyond the scope of the Constitution.[41]
Legacy[edit]
1977: The Scotts' great-grandson, John A. Madison, Jr., an attorney, gave the invocation at the ceremony at the Old Courthouse (St. Louis) in St. Louis, a National Historic Landmark, for the dedication of a National Historic Marker commemorating the Scotts' case tried there.[42]
2000: Harriet and Dred Scott's petition papers in their freedom suit were displayed at the main branch of the St. Louis Public Library, following discovery of more than 300 freedom suits in the archives of the U.S. circuit court.[43]
2006: A new historic plaque was erected at the Old Courthouse to honor the active roles of both Dred and Harriet Scott in their freedom suit and the case's significance in U.S. history.[44]
See also[edit]
American slave court cases
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 60
List of United States Supreme Court cases
Origins of the American Civil War
Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement
United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind
United States labor law
Notes[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b While the name of the Supreme Court case is Scott vs. Sandford, the respondent's surname was actually "Sanford". A clerk misspelled the name, and the court never corrected the error. Vishneski, John (1988). "What the Court Decided in Dred Scott v. Sandford". The American Journal of Legal History. Temple University. 32 (4): 373–390. doi:10.2307/845743. JSTOR 845743.
Jump up ^ "Introduction to the court opinion on the Dredd Scott case". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 2015-07-16.
^ Jump up to: a b "Remarks of the Chief Justice". Supreme Court of the United States. March 21, 2003. Retrieved 2016-03-25.
Jump up ^ Frederic D. Schwarz Archived 2008-12-03 at the Wayback Machine. "The Dred Scott Decision", American Heritage, February/March 2007.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Finkelman, Paul (2007). "Scott v. Sandford: The Court's Most Dreadful Case and How it Changed History" (PDF). Chicago-Kent Law Review. 82 (3): 3–48.
Jump up ^ D. R. Tarr; A. O'Connor, eds. (2003). "Legislation declared unconstitutional". Congress A to Z (4th ed.). Washington: CQ Press. doi:10.4135/9781483302768.n191. Archived from the original on November 9, 2015.
Jump up ^ Bernard Schwartz (1997). A Book of Legal Lists : The Best and Worst in American Law. Oxford UP. p. 70.
Jump up ^ Junius P. Rodriguez (2007). Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political, and Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 1.
Jump up ^ David Konig; et al. (2010). The Dred Scott Case: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Race and Law. Ohio UP. p. 213.
Jump up ^ Ethan Greenberg (2010). Dred Scott and the Dangers of a Political Court. Lexington Books. p. 6.
Jump up ^ Earl M. Maltz, Dred Scott and the Politics of Slavery (2007)
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h "Missouri's Dred Scott Case, 1846-1857". Missouri Digital Heritage: African American HIstory Initiative. Retrieved 15 July 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b c Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics (2001)
Jump up ^ 1 Mo. 472, 475 (Mo. 1824).
Jump up ^ 4 Mo. 350 (Mo. 1836). Rachel is remarkable as its fact pattern was on point for Scott's case. Rachel had been a female slave taken into the free Wisconsin Territory by her owner, who was an army officer. In Rachel, the Supreme Court of Missouri held she was free as a consequence of having been taken by her master into a free jurisdiction.
Jump up ^ Ehrlich, Walter (2007). They Have No Rights: Dred Scott's Struggle for Freedom. Applewood Books.
Jump up ^ Scott v. Emerson, 15 Mo. 576, 586 (Mo. 1852) Retrieved August 20, 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b c Ehrlich, Walter (September 1968). "Was the Dred Scott Case Valid?". The Journal of American History. Organization of American Historians. 55 (2): 256–265. JSTOR 1899556.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Hardy, David T. (2012). "Dred Scott, John San(d)ford, and the Case for Collusion" (PDF). Northern Kentucky Law Review. 41 (1).
Jump up ^ Maltz, Earl M. (2007). Dred Scott and the politics of slavery. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. p. 115. ISBN 0-7006-1502-4.
Jump up ^ Faragher, John Mack; et al. (2005). Out of Many: A History of the American People (Revised Printing (4th Ed) ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall. p. 388. ISBN 0-13-195130-0.
Jump up ^ Baker, Jean H. (2004). James Buchanan: The American Presidents Series: The 15th President, 1857-1861. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-8050-6946-4.
Jump up ^ "James Buchanan: Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989". Bartleby.com. Retrieved 2012-07-26.
Jump up ^ "C K Law Review" (PDF). cklawreview.com. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-12-03.
Jump up ^ Alexander Bickel, School desegregation cases and legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment in the 39th Congress: Internal Memorandum for Justice Felix Frankfurter, The Felix Frankfurter Papers, Part II: United States Supreme Court, Case Files of Opinions and Memoranda, October Terms 1953-1961
Jump up ^ See Antonin Scalia, Constitutional Interpretation the Old Fashioned Way (March 14, 2005).
Jump up ^ Abraham Lincoln's Speech on the Dred Scott Decision, June 26, 1857 Archived September 8, 2002, at the Wayback Machine..
Jump up ^ Champion of Civil Rights: Judge John Minor Wisdom. Southern Biography Series: LSU Press, 2009, p 24. https://books.google.com/books?id=atfIkRdwQ9kC&pg=PA24&dq=%22louisiana%22+%22george+mathews%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%20%22george%20mathews%22&f=false Retrieved December 4, 2012.
Jump up ^ Charles Calomiris and Larry Schweikart, "The Panic of 1857: Origins, Transmission, Containment," Journal of Economic History, LI, December 1990, pp. 807–34.
Jump up ^ Speech to the United States Senate, May 7, 1860
Jump up ^ Blassingame, John W. (15 September 2008). "Black New Orleans, 1860-1880". University of Chicago Press. Retrieved 8 August 2017 – via Google Books.
Jump up ^ Benson, Lloyd (editor). "The Issue Forced Upon Us". Secession Era Editorials Project. Furman University. Retrieved 2008-06-17. CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Don E. Fehrenbacher (1978/2001), The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics, reprint, New York: Oxford, Part 3, "Consequences and Echoes", Chapter 18, "The Judges Judged", p. 441; unpublished opinion, transcript in Carl B. Swisher Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.
Jump up ^ Dred Scott vs. Sandford: A Brief History with Documents - Google Boeken.
Jump up ^ Fehrenbacher, p. 580.
Jump up ^ "Introduction to the court opinion on the Dred Scott case". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 2015-07-16.
Jump up ^ "Remarks of the Chief Justice". Supreme Court of the United States. March 21, 2003. Retrieved 2007-11-22.
Jump up ^ Rehnquist, William. "A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases" Archived 2008-09-21 at the Wayback Machine..
Jump up ^ Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). FindLaw.
Jump up ^ Carey, Patrick W. (April 2002). "Political Atheism: Dred Scott, Roger Brooke Taney, and Orestes A. Brownson". The Catholic Historical Review. The Catholic University of America Press. 88 (2): 207–229. doi:10.1353/cat.2002.0072. ISSN 1534-0708. (requires subscription)
Jump up ^ Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (1992).
Jump up ^ Adam Arenson, "Dred Scott versus the Dred Scott Case", The Dred Scott Case: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Race and Law, Ohio University Press, 2010, p.36
Jump up ^ Arenson (2010), Dred Scott Case, p. 38
Jump up ^ Arenson (2010), Dred Scott Case, p. 39
Further reading[edit]
Dennis-Jonathan Mann & Kai Purnhagen: The Nature of Union Citizenship between Autonomy and Dependency on (Member) State Citizenship - A Comparative Analysis of the Rottmann Ruling, or: How to Avoid a European Dred Scott Decision?, in: 29:3 Wisconsin International Law Journal (WILJ), (Fall 2011), pp. 484–533 (PDF).
Fehenbacher, Don E., The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics New York: Oxford (1978) [winner of Pulitzer Prize for History].
Fehrenbacher, Don E. Slavery, Law, and Politics: The Dred Scott Case in Historical Perspective (1981) [abridged version of The Dred Scott Case].
Konig, David Thomas, Paul Finkelman, and Christopher Alan Bracey, eds. The "Dred Scott" Case: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Race and Law (Ohio University Press; 2010) 272 pages; essays by scholars on the history of the case and its afterlife in American law and society.
Potter, David M. The Impending Crisis, 1848–1861 (1976) pp 267–96.
VanderVelde, Lea. Mrs. Dred Scott: A Life on Slavery's Frontier (Oxford University press, 2009) 480 pp.
Swain, Gwenyth (2004). Dred and Harriet Scott: A Family's Struggle for Freedom. Saint Paul, MN: Borealis Books. ISBN 978-0-87351-482-8.
Tushnet, Mark (2008). I Dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Boston: Beacon Press. pp. 31–44. ISBN 978-0-8070-0036-6.
Listen to: American Pendulum II - http://one.npr.org/i/555247859:555247861
External links[edit]
Texts on Wikisource:
Dred Scott v. Sandford
"Dred Scott Case". New International Encyclopedia. 1905.
"Dred Scott Case". Collier's New Encyclopedia. 1921.
Text of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Justia Oyez OpenJurist
Primary documents and bibliography about the Dred Scott case, from the Library of Congress
"Dred Scott decision", Encyclopædia Britannica 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 17 December 2006. www.yowebsite.com
Gregory J. Wallance, "Dred Scott Decision: The Lawsuit That Started The Civil War", History.net, originally in Civil War Times Magazine, March/April 2006
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, National Park Service
Infography about the Dred Scott Case
The Dred Scott Case Collection, Washington University in St. Louis
Report of the Brown University Steering Committee on Slavery and Justice
Dred Scott case articles from William Lloyd Garrison's abolitionist newspaper The Liberator
"Supreme Court Landmark Case Dred Scott v. Sandford" from C-SPAN's Landmark Cases: 12 Historic Supreme Court Decisions
Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Opinions of the Judges Thereof, in the Case of Dred Scott Versus John F.A. Sandford. December Term, 1856 via Google Books
[show]
v
t
e
Missouri in the American Civil War
1861
Governor refuses to furnish quota of militia to the United States
Seizure of United States Arsenal at Liberty
Seizure of United States ordnance stores at Kansas City
Capture of Camp Jackson
Convention between Brig. Gen. William S. Harney, U. S. Army, and Maj. Gen. Sterling Price, Missouri State Guard
Engagement at Boonville
Skirmish at Cole Camp
Engagement near Carthage
Skirmish at Athens
Martial law declared in St. Louis
Battle of Wilson's Creek
Action at Dry Wood Creek
Siege of Lexington
Action at Blue Mills Landing
Destruction of Osceola
Operations about Ironton and Fredericktown
Action at Springfield
Engagement at Belmont
Missouri admitted as a member of the Confederate States of America
Brig. Gen. John M. Schofield, U. S. Army, assumes command of the Missouri Militia
Skirmish at Blackwater Creek
Action at Mount Zion Church
1862
Action at Roan's Tan-Yard
Operations at New Madrid
Brig. Gen. Mosby M. Parsons, Mo. S. G., assumes command of the Missouri State Guard
Action at Moore's Mill
Action at Kirksville
Action at Independence
Action at Lone Jack
Engagement at Newtonia
Skirmish at Island Mound
Action at Clark's Mill
1863
Engagement at Springfield
Engagement at Hartville
Action at Cape Girardeau
Skirmish at Chalk Bluff
Enrolled Militia of Missouri placed under command of Maj. Gen. Schofield
General Order No. 11
Shelby's raid in Arkansas and Missouri
1864
Maj. Gen. Sterling Price, C. S. Army, assumes command of the expeditionary forces at Princeton, Ark.
Price enters Missouri
Affair at Centralia
Attack on Fort Davidson
Action at Glasgow
Action at Lexington
Action at the Little Blue
Action at Independence
Action at the Big Blue
Engagement at Westport
Engagement at the Marmiton
Engagement at Newtonia
1865
Negotiations for the surrender of the Confederate forces in the Trans-Mississippi Department
Gen. E. Kirby Smith, C. S. Army, surrenders troops in Trans-Mississippi Department
Category
[hide]
v
t
e
American Civil War
[show]
Origins
Origins
Issues
Timeline leading to the War
Antebellum era
Bleeding Kansas
Border states
Compromise of 1850
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Lincoln-Douglas debates
Missouri Compromise
Popular sovereignty
Secession
States' rights
President Lincoln's 75,000 volunteers
Slavery
African Americans
Cornerstone Speech
Emancipation Proclamation
Fugitive slave laws
Plantations in the American South
Slave Power
Slavery in the United States
Treatment of slaves in the United States
Uncle Tom's Cabin
Abolitionism
Susan B. Anthony
John Brown
Frederick Douglass
William Lloyd Garrison
Elijah Parish Lovejoy
J. Sella Martin
Lysander Spooner
George Luther Stearns
Thaddeus Stevens
Charles Sumner
Harriet Tubman
Underground Railroad
[show]
Combatants
Theaters
Campaigns
Battles
States
Combatants
Union (USA)
Army
Navy
Marine Corps
Revenue Cutter Service
Confederacy (CSA)
Army
Navy
Marine Corps
Theaters
Eastern
Western
Lower Seaboard
Trans-Mississippi
Pacific Coast
Union naval blockade
Major Campaigns
Anaconda Plan
Blockade runners
New Mexico
Jackson's Valley
Peninsula
Northern Virginia
Maryland
Stones River
Vicksburg
Tullahoma
Gettysburg
Morgan's Raid
Bristoe
Knoxville
Red River
Overland
Atlanta
Valley 1864
Bermuda Hundred
Richmond-Petersburg
Franklin–Nashville
Price's Raid
Sherman's March
Carolinas
Appomattox
Major battles
Fort Sumter
1st Bull Run
Wilson's Creek
Fort Donelson
Pea Ridge
Hampton Roads
Shiloh
New Orleans
Corinth
Seven Pines
Seven Days
2nd Bull Run
Antietam
Perryville
Fredericksburg
Stones River
Chancellorsville
Gettysburg
Vicksburg
Chickamauga
Chattanooga
Wilderness
Spotsylvania
Cold Harbor
Atlanta
Mobile Bay
Franklin
Nashville
Five Forks
Involvement (by
state or territory)
AL
AK
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DC
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
[show]
Leaders
Confederate
Military
R. H. Anderson
Beauregard
Bragg
Buchanan
Cooper
Early
Ewell
Forrest
Gorgas
Hill
Hood
Jackson
A. S. Johnston
J. E. Johnston
Lee
Longstreet
Morgan
Mosby
Price
Semmes
E. K. Smith
Stuart
Taylor
Wheeler
Civilian
Benjamin
Bocock
Breckinridge
Davis
Hunter
Mallory
Memminger
Seddon
Stephens
Union
Military
Anderson
Buell
Burnside
Butler
Du Pont
Farragut
Foote
Frémont
Grant
Halleck
Hooker
Hunt
McClellan
McDowell
Meade
Meigs
Ord
Pope
D. D. Porter
Rosecrans
Scott
Sheridan
Sherman
Thomas
Civilian
Adams
Chase
Ericsson
Hamlin
Lincoln
Pinkerton
Seward
Stanton
Stevens
Wade
Welles
[show]
Aftermath
U.S. Constitution
Reconstruction amendments
13th Amendment
14th Amendment
15th Amendment
Reconstruction
Alabama Claims
Brooks–Baxter War
Carpetbaggers
Colfax Riot of 1873
Eufaula Riot of 1874
Freedmen's Bureau
Freedman's Savings Bank
Impeachment of Andrew Johnson
Kirk-Holden War
Knights of the White Camelia
Ku Klux Klan
Memphis Riot of 1866
Meridian Riot of 1871
New Orleans Riot of 1866
Pulaski (Tennessee) Riot of 1867
Reconstruction acts
Habeas Corpus Act 1867
Enforcement Act of 1870
Enforcement Act of February 1871
Enforcement Act of April 1871
Reconstruction treaties
Indian Council at Fort Smith
Red Shirts
Redeemers
Confederate refugees
Confederados
Scalawags
South Carolina riots of 1876
Southern Claims Commission
Homestead acts
Southern Homestead Act of 1866
Timber Culture Act of 1873
White League
post-Reconstruction
Commemoration
Centennial
Civil War Discovery Trail
Civil War Roundtables
Civil War Trails Program
Civil War Trust
Confederate History Month
Confederate monuments and memorials
Historical reenactment
Robert E. Lee Day
Disenfranchisement
Black Codes
Jim Crow
Lost Cause mythology
Modern display of the Confederate flag
Sons of Confederate Veterans
Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War
Southern Historical Society
United Daughters of the Confederacy
Monuments and memorials
Union
List of Union Civil War monuments and memorials
List of memorials to the Grand Army of the Republic
Memorials to Abraham Lincoln
Confederate
List of Confederate monuments and memorials
Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials
List of memorials to Robert E. Lee
List of memorials to Jefferson Davis
Annapolis
Roger B. Taney Monument
Baltimore
Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument
Confederate Women's Monument
Roger B. Taney Monument
Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson Monument
Durham, North Carolina
Robert E. Lee Monument
New Orleans
Battle of Liberty Place Monument
Jefferson Davis Monument
General Beauregard Equestrian Statue
Robert E. Lee Monument
Cemeteries
Confederate Memorial Day
Ladies' memorial associations
U.S. Memorial Day
U.S. national cemeteries
Veterans
1913 Gettysburg Reunion
Confederate Veteran
Grand Army of the Republic
Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the U.S.
Old soldiers' homes
Southern Cross of Honor
United Confederate Veterans
[show]
Related topics
Related topics
Military
Arms
Campaign Medal
Cavalry
Confederate Home Guard
Confederate railroads
Confederate Revolving Cannon
Field artillery
Medal of Honor recipients
Medicine
Leadership
Naval battles
Official Records
Partisan rangers
POW camps
Rations
Signal Corps
Turning point
Union corps badges
U.S. Balloon Corps
U.S. Home Guard
U.S. Military Railroad
Political
Committee on the Conduct of the War
Confederate States Presidential Election of 1861
Confiscation Act of 1861
Confiscation Act of 1862
Copperheads
Emancipation Proclamation
Habeas Corpus Act of 1863
Hampton Roads Conference
National Union Party
Radical Republicans
Trent Affair
Union leagues
U.S. Presidential Election of 1864
War Democrats
Other topics
Bibliography
Confederate war finance
Confederate States dollar
Espionage
Confederate Secret Service
Great Revival of 1863
Music
Naming the war
Native Americans
Cherokee
Choctaw
New York City Gold Hoax of 1864
New York City Riot of 1863
Photographers
Richmond Riot of 1863
Sexuality
Supreme Court cases
Tokens
U.S. Sanitary Commission
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dred_Scott_v._Sandford&oldid=822163693"
Categories:
1857 in United States case law
Abrogated United States Supreme Court decisions
Freedom suits in the United States
History of St. Louis
History of the United States (1849–65)
Pre-emancipation African-American history
Presidency of James Buchanan
United States slavery case law
United States substantive due process case law
United States Supreme Court cases
United States Supreme Court cases of the Taney Court
Missouri in the American Civil War
Hidden categories:
Webarchive template wayback links
CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list
Wikipedia pending changes protected pages
Articles needing additional references from March 2011
All articles needing additional references
Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the New International Encyclopedia
Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from Collier's Encyclopedia
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Azərbaycanca
Deutsch
Español
Euskara
فارسی
Français
한국어
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
עברית
Latina
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk
Português
Русский
Simple English
Suomi
Svenska
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 24 January 2018, at 19:43.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

value: mw-page-base noprint

value: mw-head-base noprint

value: Page protected with pending changes level 1

value: All edits by unregistered and new users are subject to review prior to becoming visible to unregistered users

attr: class id

value: firstHeading firstHeading en

value: siteSub noprint

attr: class src alt title

value: Changes must be reviewed before being displayed on this page.

attr: id class src style alt

attr: class href

attr: id style class

value: flaggedrevs_short flaggedrevs_stable_synced plainlinks noprint nomobile

value: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: text-align:center;font-size:125%;font-weight:bold;background-color: #99c0ff; padding: 0.2em; line-height:1.3em; font-style: italic

value: Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg

value: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 60

value:
/wiki/Property_Clause
mw-redirect
Property Clause

value: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

value: margin:0; padding:0.1em 0.5em; text-align:center; line-height:1.3em;

value: background-color: red; color: white; font-weight: bold

value: Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

value: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

value:
infobox scotus
width:22em;line-height: 1.3em

value: Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States

value: List of landmark court decisions in the United States

value:
/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court
mw-redirect
United States Supreme Court

value:
/wiki/US_labor_law
mw-redirect
US labor law

value:
/wiki/US_constitutional_law
mw-redirect
US constitutional law

value:
/wiki/Slave_and_free_states
mw-redirect
Slave and free states

value:
/wiki/Binding_precedent
mw-redirect
Binding precedent

attr: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

value: Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War

value:
/wiki/Battle_of_Negro_Fort
mw-redirect
Battle of Negro Fort

value: United States presidential election, 1860

value: Template:Events leading to American Civil War

value: Template talk:Events leading to American Civil War

value: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%;width: auto; font-size: 95%;

value:
/wiki/Free_state_(United_States)
mw-redirect
Free state (United States)

value:
/wiki/Wisconsin_territory
mw-redirect
Wisconsin territory

value:
/wiki/Jefferson_Barracks
mw-redirect
Jefferson Barracks

value:
/wiki/St._Louis,_Missouri
mw-redirect
St. Louis, Missouri

value:
/wiki/Seminole_War
mw-redirect
Seminole War

value:
/wiki/Somersett%27s_Case
mw-redirect
Somersett's Case

value: Edit section: Influence of President Buchanan

value:
/wiki/Roger_Taney
mw-redirect
Roger Taney

value:
/wiki/Article_III
mw-redirect
Article III

value: Birthright citizenship in the United States

value: Edit section: Concurrence by Justice Nelson

value: Edit section: Dissents by Justice Curtis and Justice McLean

value:
/wiki/Obiter_dicta
mw-redirect
Obiter dicta

value:
/wiki/Parallel_36%C2%B030%27_north
mw-redirect
Parallel 36°30' north

value: IJzeren voetring voor gevangenen transparent background.png

value: font-size: 105%; padding: 0.2em 0px 0.4em; text-align: center; display: none;

value:
/wiki/Slavery_in_Chad
mw-redirect
Slavery in Chad

value:
/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Americas
mw-redirect
Slavery in the Americas

value: Slavery among the indigenous peoples of the Americas

value: Slavery among Native Americans in the United States

value: Slavery in the British and French Caribbean

value:
/wiki/Slavery_in_Trinidad
mw-redirect
Slavery in Trinidad

value: Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military

value:
/wiki/Slavery_in_Oceania
mw-redirect
Slavery in Oceania

value:
/wiki/Blackbirding_in_Australia
mw-redirect
Blackbirding in Australia

value:
/wiki/Slave_raiding_in_Easter_Island
mw-redirect
Slave raiding in Easter Island

value:
/wiki/Blackbirding_in_Polynesia
mw-redirect
Blackbirding in Polynesia

value: Forced labour under German rule during World War II

value:
/wiki/Slavery_in_Norway
mw-redirect
Slavery in Norway

value: Slavery in the Spanish New World colonies

value: Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom

value: Treatment of slaves in the United States

value: History of the Republican Party (United States)

value: Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1

value: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-Refimprove

value: Popular sovereignty in the United States

value:
/wiki/William_H._Rehnquist
mw-redirect
William H. Rehnquist

value: List of United States Supreme Court cases

value: Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement

value:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F845743

value:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/845743

value: Chicago-Kent Law Review (page does not exist)

value:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/1899556

value:
nofollow
external text
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres30.html

value: Category:CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list

value:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1353%2Fcat.2002.0072

value:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/1534-0708

value: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

value: Dennis-Jonathan Mann (page does not exist)

value:
/wiki/Don_Fehrenbacher
mw-redirect
Don Fehrenbacher

value: s:The New International Encyclopædia/Dred Scott Case

value: s:Collier's New Encyclopedia (1921)/Dred Scott Case

value:
nofollow
external text
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/60/393.html

value:
nofollow
external text
https://openjurist.org/60/us/393

value:
nofollow
external text
http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9031170

value:
nofollow
external text
http://www.nps.gov/jeff

value: Landmark Cases: 12 Historic Supreme Court Decisions

value: History of the Kansas City metropolitan area

value:
navbox-image
5
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

attr: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

value: Category:Missouri in the American Civil War

value: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

value: History of the United States (1789–1849)

value:
/wiki/Lincoln-Douglas_debates
mw-redirect
Lincoln-Douglas debates

value: Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War

value: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-subgroup

value: Eastern Theater of the American Civil War

value: Western Theater of the American Civil War

value: Lower Seaboard Theater of the American Civil War

value: Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

value: Pacific Coast Theater of the American Civil War

value: Blockade runners of the American Civil War

value: Territory of Arizona (Confederate States)

value: Washington, D.C., in the American Civil War

value: New Mexico Territory in the American Civil War

value: North Carolina in the American Civil War

value: Indian Territory in the American Civil War

value: South Carolina in the American Civil War

value:
/wiki/Benjamin_Butler_(politician)
mw-redirect
Benjamin Butler (politician)

value: Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

value:
/wiki/First_Enforcement_Act_of_1871
mw-redirect
First Enforcement Act of 1871

value:
/wiki/Second_Enforcement_Act_of_1871
mw-redirect
Second Enforcement Act of 1871

value: South Carolina civil disturbances of 1876

value: List of Confederate monuments and memorials

value: Disenfranchisement after the Reconstruction Era

value: List of Union Civil War monuments and memorials

value: List of memorials to the Grand Army of the Republic

value: Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials

value: Roger B. Taney Monument (Annapolis, Maryland)

value: Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument

value: Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee Monument

value: Robert E. Lee Monument (Durham, North Carolina)

value: Robert E. Lee Monument (New Orleans, Louisiana)

value: Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States

value:
Related_topics
font-size:114%;margin:0 4em
hlist hlist-separated

value: List of weapons in the American Civil War

value: Confederate railroads in the American Civil War

value: Field artillery in the American Civil War

value: List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients

value: Military leadership in the American Civil War

value: Official Records of the American Civil War

value: United States Congress Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War

value: Confederate States presidential election, 1861

value: United States presidential election, 1864

value:
/wiki/War_Democrats
mw-redirect
War Democrats

value: Native Americans in the American Civil War

value: Supreme Court cases of the American Civil War

value: nowraplinks hlist collapsible expanded navbox-inner

value: Category:Abrogated United States Supreme Court decisions

value: Category:Freedom suits in the United States

value: Category:History of the United States (1849–65)

value: Category:United States substantive due process case law

value: Category:United States Supreme Court cases

value: Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Taney Court

value: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

value: Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages

value: Category:Articles needing additional references from March 2011

value: Category:All articles needing additional references

value: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the New International Encyclopedia

value: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from Collier's Encyclopedia

value: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

value: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

value:
/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

value: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

value: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

value: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

value: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

value: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

value: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

value: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

value:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

value: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

value: Permanent link to this revision of the page

value: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

value: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

value: interlanguage-link interwiki-de badge-Q17437798 badge-goodarticle

value: Caso Dred Scott contra Sandford – Spanish

value: درد اسکات در برابر سندفرد – Persian

value: 드레드 스콧 대 샌드퍼드 사건 – Korean

value: פסק דין דרד סקוט נגד סנדפורד – Hebrew

value: ドレッド・スコット対サンフォード事件 – Japanese

value: Дред Скотт против Сэндфорда – Russian

value: 斯科特诉桑福德案 – Chinese

value: interlanguage-link interwiki-zh badge-Q17437796 badge-featuredarticle

value: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

value: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

value:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

value: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Dred_Scott_v_Sandford rootpage-Dred_Scott_v_Sandford skin-vector action-view