The Dred Scott vs. Sandford case is one of the most important court cases of 19^th century. Starting at the St. Louis Circuit Court it made its way to the Supreme Court of the United States. This ruling in favor of Sandford was a landmark case before the American Civil War. Tensions were high between free states and slave states. This court case divided a nation and was one of the fractures that eventually led to war. In 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney “read the majority opinion of the Court, which stated that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. The opinion also stated that Congress had no authority to ban slavery from a federal territory”.[1]

During this time in American history, there were rising tensions between the North and South. Many Northerners wished to ban the expansion of slavery into new western territories. Some radical abolitionists wished to see an end to slavery in its entirety. On the other side, southerners wished to protect the system of enslavement. They thought that an end of slavery would spell ruin for the economic and social systems of the South. The expansion of slavery was a hot button issue between the North and the South.

One must look at the details of the case to see its reasoning. In 1846, “an enslaved Black man named Dred Scott and his wife, Harriet, sued for their freedom in St. Louis Circuit Court. They claimed that they were free due to their residence in a free territory where slavery was prohibited”.[2] These two persons were slaves to an army surgeon that brought up residence in the free Territory of Wisconsin.

One issue of the court case is whether enslaved people were citizens or property. Amy Van Zee in her book, Dred Scott v. Sandford: Slavery and Freedom before the American Civil War, touches on the idea of citizen vs property. She saw a contradiction of reasoning stating that slaves were property, but “slaves were regarded as people in criminal cases in which the slaves were held personally responsible for any wrongdoing”.[3] This contradiction of slaves being both showcases the hypocrisy of the legal realm before the civil war.

The history behind freedom suits is showcased in the work of Anne Silverwood Twitty in her book, Before Dred Scott: Slavery and Legal Culture in the American Confluence 1787-1857. She proclaims that on the border of slave vs free: it became more fluid. This is fluid within race and legal status. Blacks living in the area had a fluid status with being either a slave or freeman depending on what side of the Ohio or Mississippi River they lived on. The status changed from freeman to slave or vice versa based on borders. A slave could declare they are free once they crossed a border changing their legal status. This led to hundreds of “freedom suits” in the Ohio and Mississippi River Valleys.[4] This fluid idea between slave and free led to rising tensions in the area. Furthermore, Dred Scott’s wife, Harriet, was monumental in the court case according to Mrs. Dred Scott: A Life on Slavery’s Frontier by Lea VanderVelde. Mrs. Scott was a “a common woman of considerable gumption”.[5] She stood alongside her husband fighting for the freedom of her daughters. She provided emotional support to her husband and daughters during the court case. She was determined to motivate her husband, so her family could be free.

In further analysis, one must look at the words of the Supreme Court. It states that “that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution”.[6] These enslaved people are not citizens under the US Constitution. This wording would be bad to hear if the person was an abolitionist. These cold words make the enslaved, property instead of citizens. This is contrary to the idea that enslaved people were treated like citizens when being prosecuted in a criminal court. Also, one must look at the wording because he was in a US territory. The judges concluded that “neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made free by being carried into this territory”.[7] This wording confirms that slaves even when in free territories are still slaves. This wording is harsh and inhumane in modern times, but slaves were still the property of their owners no matter what territory they were in.

 

 

Bibliography

“Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857).” National Archives and Records Administration, March 6, 1857. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dred-scott-v-sandford.

Twitty, Anne Silverwood. Before Dred Scott: Slavery and legal culture in the American confluence, 1787-1857. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

VanderVelde, Lea. Mrs. Dred Scott: A life on slavery’s frontier. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Zee, Amy Van, and Earl M. Maltz. Dred Scott v. Sandford: Slavery and Freedom before the American Civil War. Minneapolis, MN: ABDO Pub., 2013.

 

 

[1] “Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857),” National Archives and Records Administration, March 6, 1857, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dred-scott-v-sandford.

[2] “Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857),” National Archives and Records Administration, March 6, 1857, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dred-scott-v-sandford.

[3] Amy Van Zee and Earl M. Maltz, Dred Scott v. Sandford: Slavery and Freedom before the American Civil War (Minneapolis, MN: ABDO Pub., 2013).

[4] Anne Silverwood Twitty, Before Dred Scott: Slavery and Legal Culture in the American Confluence, 1787-1857 (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2016).

[5] Lea VanderVelde, Mrs. Dred Scott: A Life on Slavery’s Frontier (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2009).

[6] “Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857),” National Archives and Records Administration, March 6, 1857, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dred-scott-v-sandford.

[7] “Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857),” National Archives and Records Administration, March 6, 1857, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dred-scott-v-sandford.