Dred Scott v. Sanford: Supreme Court case and decision

Dred Scott v. Sanford

Should Dred Scott have been declared a free man? Disagree with the idea that Scott should have been declared a free man.

The case of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) forced the U.S. Supreme Court to wrestle with the uncomfortable question of the status of slavery in a nation divided between slave states and free states. Although slavery is abhorrent, within the legal framework of the nation it was certainly possible to argue that there was a theoretical, legal argument for maintaining Dred Scott's status as a slave. The enslaved Scott demanded his freedom because he and his wife had lived in states of the union where slavery was prohibited.

However, in the case of Strader v. Graham (1850), the Supreme Court of the United States had already heard a similar case. In Strader, three slaves had been taken from the slave state of Kentucky to Indiana and Ohio and then back to Kentucky. "The Court declared that the status of the slave depended on the laws of Kentucky, not Ohio" ("Classifying arguments," Landmark Supreme Court Cases, 2009). The court stated that its decision was based upon the principle of federalism, or the right of states to set their own policies.

Also congruent with the principles of federalism were the Fugitive Slave Laws which demanded the return of slaves that had absconded to free states. Even if a slave managed to enter a free state, his status as human property was not overturned by his presence in a state where slavery was illegal ("Classifying arguments," Landmark Supreme Court Cases,2009)..

It must not be forgotten that at the time, the Constitution recognized the existence of slavery. In determining a state's population, slaves were counted as 3/5 of a human being. The Court thus found that Dred Scott was not a citizen "because if he were he would be entitled to all of the privileges and immunities of a citizen, one of which is the right of free movement. It is clear that the laws governing slavery do not permit this, thus he cannot be a citizen" ("Classifying arguments," Landmark Supreme Court Cases, 2009).

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court did not simply confirm the enslaved status of Scott, but also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 "that outlawed slavery in some future states was unconstitutional because Congress does not have the authority to deny property rights of law-abiding citizens. Thus, Scott was always a slave in areas that were free" ("Classifying arguments," Landmark Supreme Court Cases, 2009).

After the Scott decision, advocates of compromise between slave and free states such as Senator Henry Clay found their views legally invalidated. Clay had advocated the doctrine of popular sovereignty: that states should decide whether slavery was prohibited or permitted within their borders. As a result of Scott v. Sandford Northern states that had abolished slavery would now be forced to harbor slaves within their borders, if residents of slave states transported their 'property' to free states. To a slave-holder, being able to transport his or her property to the north was akin to being able to take a piece of luggage across state borders and retain his or her control over the property.

Southern states had always stressed the inclusion of slavery within the Constitution, and generally disregarded the Supremacy Clause, which stated that the laws of the federal government were the supreme law of the land, and state laws that conflicted with those of the federal government were to be overturned. However, it is important to remember that at the time of the Scott decision, slavery was not prohibited by federal law.