This paper examines the landmark Dred Scott v. Sanford Supreme Court case (1857), one of the most consequential legal decisions in American history. Beginning with Dred Scott's initial 1846 suit for freedom in Missouri, the paper traces the legal proceedings through multiple courts over eleven years. It also provides essential background on the Missouri Compromise of 1820, explaining how tensions between free and slave states shaped the political climate. The paper then analyzes Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's majority opinion, which denied Scott's citizenship and declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Finally, it discusses how the ruling intensified sectional conflict, contributed to Abraham Lincoln's election, and helped precipitate both the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation.
The Dred Scott v. Sanford case is one of the most important cases ever tried in the United States and was heard in the Old Courthouse of St. Louis. This case, commonly known as the Dred Scott Decision, was a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court holding that African people imported into the country and held as slaves were not protected by the U.S. Constitution and could never be American citizens. Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom from his master in a Missouri court in 1846. As part of his arguments, Scott claimed that he had resided in Illinois, a free state, and in part of the Louisiana Territory. He therefore argued that he was a free man by virtue of his residence in a free territory where slavery was prohibited by the Missouri Compromise of 1820 ("Dred Scott v. Sanford" par. 1). However, Scott's suit for freedom in the local federal court in Missouri was unsuccessful.
Eleven years after his initial suit in the Missouri court, Scott brought a new suit before the United States Supreme Court. This followed the federal court's order that the jury rely on Missouri law in determining the question of Scott's freedom. Scott also decided to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Missouri Supreme Court ruled against him and declared him a slave. In his defense, Scott's master maintained that the American Constitution did not permit persons of African descent or descendants of slaves to be considered citizens of the country. As in the initial suit, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Scott's master, reasoning that people of African descent were considered property rather than human beings. As reflected in the Supreme Court's ruling, the decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford confirmed the long-standing principle that enslaved people were not equal to U.S. citizens.
In 1819, a number of Northern congressmen were upset by the power of the South in national affairs. Southerners controlled national politics through the Three-Fifths Compromise, under which slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of determining a state's congressional representation. This calculation reflected the legal classification of slaves as property rather than human beings. The Compromise allowed Southerners to hold an advantage in presidential elections and to construct majorities in Congress. As a result, Southerners came to dominate the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson ("Missouri Compromise — 1820" par. 4).
Northern congressmen were also upset by the policies of Presidents Jefferson and Madison, both of whom were from Virginia. Some of these policies, including trade restrictions with France and Great Britain and the War of 1812, hurt the economies of many Northern states. The war also led to the collapse of the Federalist Party, which had championed policies beneficial to the Northern states. It was also during this period that Southern slavery was rapidly expanding into areas where it had been prohibited by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, particularly around the Great Lakes region.
As the Missouri Territory grew large enough in population to qualify for statehood, it was widely anticipated that it would enter the Union as a slave state ("Missouri Compromise" par. 2). The admission of Alabama as a slave state had already produced equal representation between free and slave states in the Senate. Pairing Missouri and Maine — a slave state and a free state, respectively — would help maintain that balance. When Maine was admitted as a free state, Missouri was also accepted as a state with the authority to adopt a constitution placing no restrictions on slavery. Because one provision of Missouri's proposed constitution prohibited the immigration of free Black people to the state, numerous Northern congressmen objected. Those objections forced Missouri to adopt a second congressional compromise.
The adoption of this compromise did little to ease tensions between Northerners and Southerners, as was evident in the heated debates of the period. Southerners believed that Northerners were exploiting the slavery issue as a means of resurrecting the Federalist Party and strengthening the central government. Southerners viewed Northerners as people with no genuine humanitarian concern for the enslaved. Northerners, in turn, regarded Southerners as people who had no intention of ever ending slavery and who wished to use national legislation to protect and expand the institution. Pro-slavery arguments consequently grew more aggressive, with defenders of slavery contending that Africans were created by God to be enslaved rather than to live as independent citizens.
Despite these ongoing tensions, the Missouri Compromise managed to address the national slavery issue smoothly for several decades. The Compromise established a precedent for admitting states to the Union in pairs — one free and one slave ("1820 Missouri Compromise" par. 4). Although this was not enshrined in written legislation, it was a general understanding among senators aimed at ensuring that the number of slave-state senators remained equal to the number of free-state senators. The land acquired from France through the Louisiana Purchase was also divided into two sections as a result of the Compromise: one section prohibited slavery while the other permitted it. Though the Missouri Compromise was not part of the Constitution, many Americans regarded it with nearly constitutional authority, and it was widely considered a successful resolution to the slavery question.
Dred Scott v. Sanford is not only one of the most important cases in the history of the United States but also one of two trials involving Dred Scott that set in motion a series of difficult events and hastened the onset of the Civil War ("The Dred Scott Decision" par. 1). The first of Scott's two trials began in 1847, when he was approximately 50 years old, having spent his entire life as an illiterate slave. After relocating to St. Louis in 1830, Scott was sold to Dr. John Emerson due to the financial difficulties of his original master. Emerson was a military surgeon stationed at Jefferson Barracks who brought Scott with him to both Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory. During a brief stay in Louisiana, Dr. Emerson married Irene Sanford. He died in 1843, leaving his wife, who subsequently hired out Scott's family as domestic workers.
Although Dred Scott had lived in free territories for approximately nine years without attempting to end his servitude, he ultimately filed a lawsuit against Irene Emerson seeking freedom for himself and his family ("Dred Scott v. Sanford — 1857" par. 3). While the precise reasons for his timing remain uncertain, Scott chose to act because he had once lived in a free state and Missouri courts had previously upheld the "once free, always free" doctrine. Because Scott was poor and illiterate, he was assisted by his minister, John Anderson, and received financial support from his original owners. This assistance proved crucial in sustaining Scott's complex and consistently disappointing court battle, which lasted approximately eleven years.
Scott lost his initial lawsuit because hearsay evidence had been improperly admitted, though the judge granted him the right to a second trial. In the second trial, held in the same St. Louis courthouse in 1850, the judges ruled that Scott's family should be freed after reviewing the evidence. However, his master, Mrs. Emerson, appealed the decision to the Missouri State Supreme Court, unwilling to relinquish Scott and his family, who represented valuable property. In 1852, the Missouri State Supreme Court reversed the 1850 ruling and returned Scott's family to slavery. The court cited the changing times as justification for the decision and ruled that Missouri law, which permitted slavery and upheld the rights of slaveholders throughout the state, was controlling.
Determined to continue fighting for his freedom, Dred Scott filed a lawsuit against John F. A. Sanford in the St. Louis Federal Court in 1854, aided by a new team of antislavery lawyers. Sanford, who resided in New York, was Mrs. Emerson's brother and the administrator of the Emerson estate. Scott accused Sanford of assaulting him and his wife and children ("U.S. Supreme Court" par. 3). Because the parties were residents of different states, the case was brought before the federal courts, which ultimately ruled in favor of Sanford. Scott then appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Taney denies citizenship and voids Missouri Compromise"
"Ruling sparks Republican rise and Lincoln's proclamation"
"Missouri Compromise (1820)." ENotes.com. ENotes.com, Inc. Web. 31 Jan. 2011.
"Missouri Compromise." Infoplease: All the Knowledge You Need. Information Please: Pearson Education, Inc. Web. 31 Jan. 2011.
"U.S. Supreme Court: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)." FindLaw: For Legal Professionals. FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters Business. Web. 31 Jan. 2011.
You’re 72% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.