Dred Scott v. Sandford | casebriefings

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

(Slavery, due process, The Missouri Compromise)

Holding

(7-2). Any slave would not be considered as citizen of U.S. But after civil war, congress passed 14th amendment which said that anyone born in US is a citizen of US.

Issues

Can a slave be considered as citizen of U.S under United States Constitution?

Dissenting Opinions

Justices McLean and Curtis presented dissenting opinions which ruled for Scott. They claimed that black slaves must be considered as US citizens because they are born U.S. He also claimed about overturning of the Missouri Compromise which was declared as unconstitutional later.

Majority Decisions

Taney wrote for majority that the slaves born in or brought in US as slaves are not citizens of US and are considered as the property of their owners. Also according to the constitution and they have no right to sue. Most of the court agreed with Taney. He also wrote "the laws of the State in which the petitioner was currently resident, namely the slave State of Missouri, should apply.”

The court was also struck down with the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional because it deprived property owners to take slaves anywhere in US.

Taney rejected the principle of sovereignty.

Facts

Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia around 1799. In 1834, Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon in US army, bought Scott as a slave in Missouri and moved him to Illinois (free state). In 1836, Scott and Emerson moved to Fort Snelling. In Missouri Compromise of 1820, Congress prohibited slavery in the area including Fort Snelling. Emerson died in 1843 and his widow and slave Scott. In 1846, Dred Scott asked Emerson’s widow that if he could buy his freedom from Mrs Emerson but she refused.

Scott sued Mrs Emerson for false imprisonment and claiming that Emerson held him illegally. He also claimed that he was a free man and lived a free life in a free state but then he was caught by Emerson and brought to slave state against his will. By 1850, Mrs Emerson left her brother John Sandford, as in charge of her financial matters and also the case. The jury agreed to Scott’s claim that his family should be free from such slavery. In the meantime, Sandford appealed to Missouri Supreme Court. In reply to that appeal, Court said that Missouri does not have to follow the laws of another state and as a slave state, Missouri’s laws meant that Scott and his family were not free.

There were many examples of slaves who successfully sued their owners for freedom, just like Scott did. By 1850, many states were taking different steps and making things difficult so that such cases become difficult to win.

Commentary

This case has its own importance because of this main fact that it was all about slavery which has now changed throughout the history of United States. This case played an important role in understanding of some rules and facts of governmental and constitutional knowledge. This case involves the understanding of due process, civil war, Missouri Compromise and slavery before civil war. It also helped in learning of what slave and free state is. This case not only talks about Supreme Court and jury but also clearly describes the constitution of US including 5th amendment and III and IV articles of US constitution. Dred Scott vs Sandford case has its own significance. It overturned Missouri Compromise and Kansas-Nebraska Act. Missouri Compromise declared which state was a slave state and a free state. After reading the background of this case, I think it brought the Missouri Compromise in front of people and taught them how to deal with it and also helped people in going through the slavery issue before civil war.

Court's Decision

“slaves are not citizens under the United States Constitution”

Supreme Court also declared The Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional because it violated 5th amendment which prohibits Congress to deprive persons of their property without due process of law.