Dred Scott Case Dred Scott\'s

Dred Scott CASE

Dred Scott's case occupies an important place in the history of race relations in the country. It took place at a time when America was actually "a Nation on the Brink" [Stampp] i.e. It was then a country with highly strained race relations that could explode into major crisis anytime now. The various laws in the country decided where slavery was banned and where it was still legal and The Compromise of 1850 had served as a reminder in this connection. Slavery was a legal institution in the South but it was decided that if any slave could prove that he was a resident of an anti-slavery state, he would be freed. The fight between Northern and Southern states on the subject of slavery intensified during 1856 presidential elections. And that is when the Dred Scott case emerged.

Scott was born to slave parents and lived with his owners in St. Louis, Missouri. He was later sold to Dr. John Emerson around 1833 and since Emerson was a military officer, he would travel all over the country frequently. During his time with the new owner, Scott lived for long period of time in various cities such as Fort Armstrong, Illinois, Fort Snelling, Wisconsin Territory, Fort Jessup, Louisiana, and St. Louis. While some states had legalized slavery, Illinois was a free state and if Scott could prove his resident status, he could win his freedom. Scott decided to fight to become a free man and from 1846 till a decade later, his struggle continued and even reached the highest court of law in the United States. Scott began his fight when he had become a property of Emerson's wife whom he complained would, "beat, bruised, and ill-treated him" and even imprisoned him for 12 hours. In a declaration filed by Scott, he tried to convince the courts that he could be counted as a citizen of a free state due to his extended stay in Fort Armstrong and Fort Snelling and thus should be granted freedom. Scott was particularly inspired by the Missouri Supreme Court's 1836 Rachel v. Walker decision in which Rachel had been freed since she was found to be resident of Fort Snelling and Prairie du Chien in Illinois.

But there was a technical problem with Scott's case. Even though there were precedents present, it was found that Scott did not qualify as a resident since he had moved back to slave states. Thus his owner won the first trial. The case then moved to the Missouri Supreme Court in 1850 where 14 years ago, Rachel had been granted freedom. But 14 years had made a huge difference, as Scott would later discover. The precedents had been set by "liberal-minded judges who were predisposed to favor freedom and whose opinions seemed to reflect the older view of enlightened southerners that slavery was, at best, a necessary evil." However in 1850s, race climate had changed somewhat with racial tensions mounting and sectional conflict sharply intensifying. And unfortunately for Scott, three judges were hearing his case, two of whom were proslavery. Secondly cases such as United States Supreme Court's Strader v. Graham decision (1851) had proved to be an unfortunate and unfavorable precedent. The Dred Scott case was decided in 1852 in Missouri Supreme Court and the ruling favored the owners.

The case then went to U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri and thus entered the federal judicial system. By this time, Mrs. Emerson had remarried and her brother John Sanford now owned Scott. However by the time this case made its way to the federal judicial system, people had started suspecting the authenticity of the case and its purpose. During the trial, it was not clear whether the two sides really wanted to win or were they just trying to make some kind of case for or against slavery. Don Fehrenbacher thus wrote: "Dred Scott v. Sandford was either a genuine suit, or a counterfeit designed for abolitionist purposes, or part of a proslavery plot that succeeded." The uncertainty surrounding the exact objective of the case resulted in Republicans claiming that the case of not genuine.

While the true intents were not revealed and couldn't be ascertained, the two sides met in the United States Circuit Court in 1854. Judge Robert W. Wells who was himself "a slaveholder" but "who nevertheless regarded slavery as a barrier to progress," was presiding. The argument that had earlier resulted in Mrs. Emerson's victory was used again effectively and the jury ruled against Scott once again.

The only option open to Scott was entering the highest court of law in the U.S. i.e. The United States Supreme Court and that's what he decided to do. Montgomery Blair - a very well-known name in the legal circuit, fought his case pro bono. The Supreme Court decided to hear the Scott v. Sandford case after the presidential elections in 1856.

Scott case. By the time the case was restarted in the Supreme Court, violent racial conflicts had started in Kansas and Congress was severely divided over the issue of slavery. Scott's case thus attracted massive attention as Kenneth Stampp wrote:

When reargument [of the case] before the Court began on December 15 the potentially broad political significance of the case had become evident, and public interest in it had increased considerably." In fact, "by Christmas 1856, Dred Scott's name was probably familiar to most Americans who followed the course of national affairs."

As the re-argument began, the case was first seen from the viewpoint of the issue of slavery and no constitutional laws in connection with citizens were considered. Even the Missouri Compromise was not discussed and Judge Nelson was selected to write the majority opinion. However his opinion proved ineffective as it didn't reflect the majority view and Chief Justice Roger B. Taney was chosen to replace him. This time all important and pertinent laws and issues were considered including Negro citizenship and the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. The case had become an important political discussion and by mid-February 1857, it was evident that Scott v. Sandford was reaching a closure. President-elect James Buchanan was eager to know the result so he could incorporate some comments on the territorial issue in his inaugural address on March 4, 1857.

On the day of the inauguration, the decision was almost obvious and Buchanan offered to support the Supreme Court ruling. He said:

difference of opinion has arisen in regard to the point of time when the people of a Territory shall decide this question [of slavery] for themselves. This is, happily, a matter of but little practical importance. Besides, it is a judicial question, which legitimately belongs to the Supreme Court of the United States, before whom it is now pending, and will, it is understood, be speedily and finally settled. To their decision, in common with all good citizens, I shall cheerfully submit, whatever this may be.

Two days after the inaugural address, the "shameful decision" was reached. Taney who was too feeble to think clearly rejected the idea of citizenship completely for a black person residing in the U.S. saying: "Can a Negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen?"