Dred Scott Case: Legal Analysis and Historical Impact

Introduction

The Supreme Court of the United States is commonly held to be the last bastion of legal correctness and completeness. While legal precedents shift and change over time, the Court eventually "gets it right," or at least arrives at a settled position. However, there are times when the Court clearly gets it wrong and technically enshrines something that is misguided and ill-conceived. Although Plessy v. Ferguson ranks among the worst decisions for much the same reason, the Dred Scott case came first and has been deemed one of the most egregious — and racist — decisions in the history of the United States. While then-Chief Justice Taney believed the decision rested on solid legal ground, it was eventually rendered obsolete, and the reversal it necessitated should never have been necessary in the first place.

Background: Dred Scott's Life and Path to Court

Dred Scott was born into slavery in 1799 in Virginia. He was owned by the family of Peter Blow. The family later moved to Alabama and took Scott with them. When the family decided to give up farming and run a boarding house instead, ownership of Scott was transferred to John Emerson, a member of the U.S. Army. Emerson moved frequently from post to post, and Scott was required to accompany him.

Even though he was enslaved, Scott met his future wife at one of those posts and married Harriet Robinson in Wisconsin, which was legally a free territory. His wife was herself enslaved and owned by another person. This was notable because the marriage of enslaved people was not legally recognized at the time, and the circumstances of their union would later become relevant in Scott's legal battles. At some point, Harriet was transferred to Emerson's ownership so that both Dred and Harriet were held by the same person. When Emerson completed his career and later died, ownership of the Scotts passed as part of his estate.

Fed up with his condition, Scott offered $300 to purchase his freedom. Irene Emerson, the widow who controlled the estate, refused. It was at that point that Scott sought his freedom through legal means (PBS, 2016).

The Court Decisions: From Missouri to the Supreme Court

The Scotts were living under the control of their enslaver in Missouri at the time, so Dred Scott brought his grievance to the Saint Louis circuit court. Scott had a compelling case. He had resided for two years in a free territory and had been treated in many respects as a free man — the marriage to his wife being one of the principal reasons. Under precedent that existed at the time, once an enslaved person was treated as free, that status was generally considered permanent. Furthermore, the Scotts' eldest daughter had been born in a free territory and was therefore entitled to freedom under existing legal precedent.

Two trials were held in 1847. The first went against Scott, partly because evidence of his ownership — while proven — was dismissed as hearsay. The case was retried and decided in Scott's favor. Irene Emerson appealed, and the Missouri Supreme Court overturned the judgment. The court reasoned that Missouri had no obligation to honor the laws and decisions of free states. This ruling reversed nearly thirty years of legal precedent in a single decision (PBS, 2016).

The Supreme Court's 1857 Ruling and Its Reasoning

Unwilling to accept that outcome, Scott pursued the same case at the federal level. The federal court accepted the case because Scott had been sold to a man in New York, yet Scott remained subject to Missouri law. However, the federal proceedings offered little additional relief. In March 1857, the court ruled against Scott on three separate grounds.

First, the Court held that Black people — whether free or enslaved — were not citizens of the United States and therefore had no right to sue in federal court. Second, the Court pointed to the Ordinance of 1787, which similarly held that citizenship could not be extended to non-white people living in the Northwest Territories. Third, the Court addressed the Missouri Compromise, finding that certain provisions exceeded the powers of Congress — specifically, the clause that excluded slavery and extended freedom to non-white persons in the northern portion of the Louisiana Purchase territory.

In essence, the ruling asserted that Black Americans had no legal standing to demand freedom or citizenship. This finding also meant, on its face, that Scott had no right to bring his case before a federal court at all. In one broad stroke, Scott's legal options were eliminated and key provisions of the Missouri Compromise were struck down simultaneously (PBS, 2016).

Conclusion

The effects of slavery and bigoted laws and rulings are still felt today. There are still cases of segregation, still cases of institutional racism, and still instances where Black Americans are treated as second-class citizens relative to white people. However, conditions have improved over time, even if political and social discourse can at moments suggest otherwise. There remains significant work to be done in the area of interracial relations and broader social equality, but the trajectory points toward continued progress and change.

References

Ellis, C. (1865). A scathing 1865 critique of the Dred Scott judge, Roger B. Taney. The Atlantic. Retrieved 28 March 2016, from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1865/02/roger-b-taney-the-leviathan-of-slavery/387241/

History.com. (2016). Dred Scott case — Black history. HISTORY.com. Retrieved 28 March 2016, from http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/dred-scott-case

PBS. (2016). Dred Scott. PBS.org. Retrieved 28 March 2016, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html