Jesse Hisaw

HIS 334
06-23-2014
Dred Scott v. Sanford in 1857, was a historic decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in
which the Court held that African Americans, whether slave or free, could not be American
citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court, and that the Federal Government
had no power to regulate slavery inside the Federal Territories acquired after the creation of the
United States.1 Dred Scott, an African American slave who was taken by his owners to free
states and territories from a slave state, attempted to sue for his freedom. The outcome of the
case was a 7 to 2 decision written by the Supreme Chief Justice Roger B. Taney that denied Dred
Scotts freedom.
Little is known about Dred Scott until later in his life until the entire nation knew his name in
the papers, when his suit for freedom reached the Supreme Court. Dred Scott went down a
bumpy road in suit of his freedom and in doing so his court case shocked the nation and is still
viewed and discussed today.
Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia in 1775.2 In 1820, Dred was taken by his master,
Peter Blow to Missouri. There Dred Scott was later purchased by a U.S. Army Surgeon named
Dr. John Emerson. After John Emerson bought Dred Scott, they moved to Fort Armstrong,
Illinois. Illinois had been a free state since the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and had denied
slavery in its state constitution in 1819. Again in 1836, Dred Scott moved to Fort Snelling which
1 Paul Finklemn,Scott v. Sandford: The Courts Most Dreadful Case and How it Changed
History, Chiacgo-Kent Law Review Vol. 82 iss. 1 art. 2
2 Earl M. Maltz, Dred Scott and the Politics of Slavery(2007)

Jesse Hisaw
HIS 334
06-23-2014
is in the Wisconsin territory. This territory was also a free territory by the United States
Congress by the Missouri Compromise.3 During Dred Scotts stay at Fort Snelling, he married
another slave, which John Emerson bought there, by the name of Harriet Robinson.4 That next
year, John Emerson was ordered to Jefferson Barracks Military Post in the south part of St.
Louis, Missouri. While Emerson and his wife left for Missouri, they left Dred Scott and his wife
at Fort Snelling. There they leased their services out for profit. In doing this John Emerson was
effectively bringing the institution of slavery into a free state. This of course was a violation of
the Missouri Compromise, Northwest Ordinance and the Wisconsin Enabling Act. Before the
end of that same year the army had reassigned John Emerson to Fort Jesup in Louisiana. When
he reached the fort he sent for Dredd and Harriet Scott to come serve for John in Louisiana.
While they were on their way down the Mississippi River Dreds daughter was born on the
steamboat between Iowa and Illinois. Eliza was born in free territory and therefore born a free
person under the federal law.5 While John Emerson served in the Seminole War, his wife moved
back to St. Louis and continued to hire out Dred and his Wife. When John Emerson died in Iowa
Territory in 1843, his wife Eliza Irene Emerson inherited his estate including the Dred Scott
3 Paul Finklemn,Scott v. Sandford: The Courts Most Dreadful Case and How it Changed
History, Chiacgo-Kent Law Review Vol. 82 iss. 1 art. 2
4 The Slave Case In The United States Supreme Court Richmond Whig, Vol. 33, iss. 104
(December 26 1856)
5 Paul Finklemn,Scott v. Sandford: The Courts Most Dreadful Case and How it Changed
History, Chiacgo-Kent Law Review Vol. 82 iss. 1 art. 2

Jesse Hisaw
HIS 334
06-23-2014
slave family. For three years after Johns death Eliza continued to hire out the Scotts and in 1846
Dred tried to purchase his families freedom, but Eliza Irene Emerson refused. This made the
Dred Scott family use legal action.6
When Dred Scotts attempt to purchase his familys freedom failed, he was aided by the help of
some abolitionist legal advisors. In 1846, Scott sued Eliza Emerson for his freedom in a
Missouri court. Dred Scott received financial support for the case from the son of his previous
owner, Peter Blow. Dred Scott based his argument in court on similar past cases such as
Somersett v. Stewart, Winny v. Whitesides, and Rachel v. Walker.7 Since Missouri courts had
previously heard over ten other cases where they had freed slaves who like Dred Scott had been
taken into free territories, was expected to win their suit. However the suit of Scott was
dismissed by a technicality on Dreds part, he had failed to give a witness to testify that him and
his family were slaves belonging to Eliza Emerson.
At the end of 1847, however the judge granted Dred Scott a new trial. When this happened,
Eliza Emerson, of course, appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri. This act affirmed the trial
courts order in 1848.8 Due to some natural disasters like fires and epidemics, the new trial for
6 Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and
Politics(2001)
7 1 Mo. 472, 475 (Mo 1824); 4 Mo 350 (Mo. 1836)
8 John S. Vishneski,III What the Court Decided in Dred Scott v. Sandford The American
Journal of Legal History Vol. 32, No. 4 (Oct., 1988), pp. 373-390

Jesse Hisaw
HIS 334
06-23-2014
Dred Scott did not begin until the beginning of 1850. Having produced a witness to prove to the
courts that Dred Scott and his family did belong to Eliza Emerson, the jury favored Scott and his
family for their freedom. At this time Eliza had moved to Massachusetts and unwilling to take
the loss of her slaves, she transferred the ownership of Dred and his family to her brother, John
F. A. Sanford. John, like his sister, kept appealing to the courts and on November of 1852 the
Missouri Supreme Court flipped the trial courts decision stating that Dred Scott and his family
were still legally slaves and that they should have sued for their freedom while they were living
in a free state or territory. This decision effectively overturned 28 years of Missouri state
precedent. After the trial 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 not
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.9
Being determined to receive his freedom, Dred Scott sued his current owner John Sanford in
1853 for his freedom but this time in the federal court. Dreds grounds for this case being taken
in federal court was that Sanford was a resident of New York, and that the federal courts could
9 Scott v. Emerson, 15 Mo. 576, 586 (Mo 1852)

Jesse Hisaw
HIS 334
06-23-2014
hear the case under diversity jurisdiction by U. S. Constitution in Article III, Section 2. The
elected president at that time was James Buchanan but he hadnt been sworn into office yet.
Before the ruling was issued James Buchanan wrote to one of his colleagues on the Supreme
Court, John Catron, asking to see if the ruling was to be decided before his inauguration on
March of 1857. Buchanan hoped the decision would stop all of the unrest throughout out the
country over the slavery issue and that the decision would put to future of slavery far from the
area of politics. In his inaugural speech Buchanan said, I believe slavery to be a great political
and great moral evil, and that the question of slavery would be speedily and finally settled by
the Supreme Court.10 The Supreme Court ruling was given on March 6, 1857, two days after
James Buchanans inauguration. In total, the decision was 7 to 2, to keep Dred Scott and his
family slaves. Six Justices agreed with the ruling; Samuel Nelson concurred with the ruling but
not the reasoning behind it, and John McLean and Benjamin Robbins Curtis dissented.11
In making the decision, there were three questions before the court. The Supreme Court had to
first decide if they had jurisdiction to hear Dreds case. Chief Roger Taney had to make sure the
case fell within a category recognized by the U.S. Constitution. Dred Scott declared he was a
citizen of the state of Missouri and that the defendant, John Sanford, was a citizen of New York.
The Court seen that this established the federal courts jurisdiction by the Constitution under the
10 Roger Matuz, The Presidents Fact Book, Black Dog and Leventhal Publishers 2004, page
240
11 Fehrenbacher, D. E. The Dred Scott case. (1978). Pg. 2

Jesse Hisaw
HIS 334
06-23-2014
Diversity Clause. Sanford however, disputed Dred Scotts claim of being a citizen by stating
that he was a descendent of an imported slave from Africa. Therefore, by reason, of this fact he
could not be a citizen in any state. Dred made other allegations on his behalf to show that he had
been emancipated and freed so that he could therefore have the status of citizen. The courts
decision in this issue states that neither Scott nor any person of African descent, freed or not,
could ever have the title of citizen. This, of course, made Dred Scott unable to bring a suit into
the federal court system. Chief Justice Roger Taney spent several pages of his decision telling
the history of slave law in the American states to see whether federal law could have recognized
Dred Scott as a citizen when the constitution was ratified. Leaning upon statements made by
Charles Pinckney who wrote the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Roger Taney concluded that
the Constitution interpreted blacks as being an inferior order and had no rights by which the
white man had.12
The Court also presented a parade of horribles argument that listed what the Court thought to be
bad effects of granting Scotts petition. The argument said, It would give to persons of the
negro race, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, to sojourn there as long as
they pleased, to go where they pleased, the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all
subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs,
and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.13 According to Roger Taneys conclusion,
12 Alfred H. Kelly, The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development,New York (1976)
pages 253-254
13 Kermit L. Hall (1999). The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions, Oxford
University Press. (1999)p. 278

Jesse Hisaw
HIS 334
06-23-2014
nothing in the nations history or law suggested that Scotts situation would make him a citizen in
the United Sates.
The second question of the decision was the legality of the provisions of the Missouri
Compromise. The decision made was that using the Missouri Compromise to declare free
territories were beyond the power of the Congress. And that the Fifth Amendment barred any law
that would deprive a slave owner of his slave property when they move or visit to a free territory.
This was the second time in the history of the United States that the Supreme Court had made an
act of Congress unconstitutional.
The third and last question that was before the Supreme Court was: Did Dred Scotts
residency in the free territory of Wisconsin makes him a free man? Here Roger Taney cited the
Supreme Court of Missouris denial of Dred Scotts freedom by saying that the Curcuit Court
had no jurisdiction and so he could not be a free man.14
Justice Curtis and Justice McLean dissent the decision made by the fellow Justices. They
argued that there wasnt any basis for the claim that blacks could not be citizens. And at the time
of ratification of the Constitution, black men could vote in almost half of the thirteen states.
Doing this made them citizens in not only those states but also citizens in the United States.15
The decision of Dred Scott was seen as a success in southern slave states. They saw it as
a proper interpretation of the Constitution. Before the case of Dred Scott, the Democratic Party
14 Scott v. Emerson, 15 Mo. 576, 586 (Mo 1852)
15 Abraham Lincolns Speech on the Dred Scott Decision, June 26, 1857

Jesse Hisaw
HIS 334
06-23-2014
politicians had tried to repeal the Missouri Compromise. And after the Dred Scott case in 1854,
their dream came true. In the place of the Missouri Compromise was the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
This act allowed slavery to exist in a state or territory by popular sovereignty. Many people who
believed in the Slave Power Conspiracy believed that this was an act to push out and expand
slavery. The opponents of slavery fiercely attacked the Dred Scott Decision. The Evening
Journal of Albany, New York denounced the decision as both an offense to the foundation of
liberty, which the nation was founded, and as a victory for the slave states over the free states.16
The sons of Peter Blow, Scotts first owner, purchased the freedom for Dred and his Family on
May 26, 1857.17 Gaining their freedom was national news and celebrated in Northern cities.
Dred Scott then worked in a hotel in St. Louis, Missouri. There he was considered a local
celebrity. But 18 months later after his freedom, he died of tuberculosis on November 7, 1858.
His wife, Harriet, died 18 years later on June 17, 1876.18 The blow family buried Dred Scott in
the Wesleyan Cemetery at Grand and Laclede Avenues. Later, because the cemetery had been
abandoned, Taylor Blow bought a better resting place for Scott. On November 27, 1867, he
purchased Lot 177 in Section 1 of Calvary Cemetery and had Scott reburied there.19

16 The Issue Forced Upon Us, Secession Era Editorials Project, Furman University
17 Dred Scott Free At Last, Himself and His Family Emancipated.St. Louis Daily Evening
News. May 26, 1857
18 Dred Scott Dead. St. Louis Evening News and Intelligencer. September 20, 1858.

Jesse Hisaw
HIS 334
06-23-2014
Carey noted that the decision of Dred Scott, written by Roger B. Taney, left the Justices
reputation badly tarnished. While Taney attempted to end the disruptive question about the
future of slavery, he wrote a decision that aggravated sectional tensions and is considered as one
of the major contributors to the American Civil War.20

19 Artifacts as Storytellers: The Dred Scott Portrait. Missouri Historical Society

Magazine. Jan/Feb 2000. p. 7.
20 Patrick W. Carey, Political Atheism: Dred Scott, Roger Brooke Taney, and Orestes A.
Brownson, The Catholic Historical Review,page 207-229