The Dred Scott Case
Project by: Samantha Vasquez
Dred Scott was enslaved and tried to sue for the freedom of his family. To maintain balance amongst the states, in 1820 Missouri was established as a slave state while Maine was a free one. In doing so, a “customary line was drawn at 36°30’” ((Weinberg, Louise. 2007. “Dred Scott and the Crisis of 1860.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 82 (1): 97–140. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.chknt82.8&site=eds-live, accessed April 25, 2023.)) which meant new states north of the line prohibited slavery and those south of it would permit slavery. The compromise was established to maintain the balance between slaves and free states. During this time in the United States, neither the South nor the North wanted the other side to have more power in the Senate.
Dred Scott was enslaved; however, he had resided in states and territories north of the compromise line with his owner. While traveling, Scott went “first to Illionois and then to a fort in the northern part of the Louisiana Purchase designated a free territory by the Missouri Compromise ((Jackson, Faith Joseph. 2011. “Dred Scott v. Sandford: A Prelude to the Civil War.” Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest 15 (2): 377–402. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.richlapin15.17&site=eds-live, accessed April 25, 2023.)) Once he was back in Missouri, he attempted to sue for the freedom of his family based on the fact he, an enslaved person, entered territory where slavery was illegal.
Due to the death of Dr. John Emerson, Dred Scott’s owner, in 1843 the lawsuit was against his widow. However, the first trial was in favor of Mrs. Emerson which eventually led to the Scotts being granted a second trial. During the second trial, the jury decided Dred Scott and his family should be free, which only lasted for two short years. As a result, “Mrs. Emerson’s attorney appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri, which reversed the lower state court’s decision with a two to one vote against Scott.” ((Jackson, Faith Joseph. 2011. “Dred Scott v. Sandford: A Prelude to the Civil War.” Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest 15 (2): 377–402. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.richlapin15.17&site=eds-live, accessed April 25, 2023.)) In response, Dred Scott was determined to maintain his freedom, so his lawyer went forward with filing an appeal in federal court. Although the second trial reached the decision that the Scott’s were free, their ownership was transferred to Mrs. Emerson’s brother, John Sandford. During the appeal against Sandford, the courts ruled against the Scotts.
In 1857, Dred Scott had once again appealed the ruling but this time to the United States Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roger Taney delivered the decision to the court, Dred Scott and his family were not to be free. Justice Taney “reached his conclusion with the sweeping explanation that… Black people had “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”((Chacon, Jennifer M. 2008. “Citizenship and Family: Revisiting Dred Scott.” Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 27 (January): 45–70. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.wajlp27.5&site=eds-live, accessed April 25, 2023.)) The lack of rights included the idea that since enslaved people were not considered citizens, they were not authorized to bring a lawsuit to the federal court. Therefore, Scott and his family were enslaved under the decision of the United States Supreme Court.
Following the decision in the Dred Scott case, Chief Justice Taney and other judges provided their opinions in the document, “The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis.” New York, H. Greely & co. published the document in 1860 after the decision of the Supreme Court justices. Based on this document, it exemplifies the attitudes of the highest judges in the United States during this time period. It is expressed throughout Black and enslaved individuals should never be regarded as equal and therefore, should not have rights. Airst glance, it can be overlooked, yet one Justice states “not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery.”((United States Supreme Court, Dred Scott, John F. A Sanford, Roger Brooke Taney, and Alfred Whital Stern Collection Of Lincolniana. The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. New York, H. Greeley & co, 1860. Pdf. https://www.loc.gov/item/10034357/, accessed April 25, 2023.)) This word choice was done on purpose to professionally justify the racist attitudes of the United States Supreme Court.
0 Comments