Bryan LeBeau: 150th anniversary of Dred Scott decision
[Bryan Le Beau holds a Ph.D. in American Studies and is currently Dean of Institutional Services at the Kansas City Kansas Community College.]
The Dred Scott case took several years to work its way through the courts, and the issues involved were many and complicated. In sum, however, although the jury in a lower state court ruled the Scotts legally free, upon appeal the Missouri State Supreme Court reversed the decision. The judges ruled that Scott’s presence in a free territory did not overrule the laws of Missouri to which he returned. Writing for the majority, Justice William Scott (not related to Dred Scott) praised God for instituting slavery, whereby men like Dred Scott could be elevated above the level of “miserable” Africans. “The introduction of slavery amongst us,” he continued, was “in the providence of God, who makes the evil passions of men subservient to His own glory, a means of placing that unhappy race within the pale of civilized nations.”
The matter might have been settled at that point, but in the process of defending her property, Irene Emerson had named her brother, John Sanford, to represent her in court. Sanford lived in New York. That made it an interstate matter, which allowed Scott to appeal the case to the federal courts. The Federal District Court in St. Louis upheld the state court’s ruling, whereupon Scott appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Incidentally, the Court Clerk misspelled Sanford’s name, thereby recording the case for posterity as Dred Scott v. Sandford.)
Historians speculate that the sons of Peter Blow, his original owner, paid Dred Scott’s legal bills to this point. Taking the case to Washington, however, may have been too expensive for them. Soon after his appeal to the nation’s highest court, a twelve page appeal for help appeared under Scott’s name. Whether or not Scott wrote it is subject to debate. It read, in part: “I have no money to pay anybody in Washington to speak for me. My fellow men, can any of you help me in my day of trial? Will nobody speak for me at Washington, even without hope of other reward than the blessings of a poor black man and his family?” On Christmas Eve 1854, Montgomery Blair, a prominent Washington attorney, who once practiced law in St. Louis, took Scott’s case pro bono.
The immediate issue facing the Supreme Court was whether people of African descent, free or slave, could be citizens of the United States. If not, then the case could not proceed, because Scott would not be entitled to use the federal courts. On March 6, 1857, the Court handed down its ruling. In brief, the Court ruled that under Article III of the United States Constitution, Scott was not a citizen. States had the power to allow blacks citizenship for purposes of state law (and several had), but, Taney wrote, that did not qualify them for citizenship under the U.S. Constitution and make them subject to federal law. This would be changed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that was adopted in the wake of the Civil War, but for the moment Scott’s case could not be heard in the federal courts and the Missouri Supreme Court decision stood.
Most legal scholars agree that Taney’s ruling should have ended there. Instead, he went on to declare that even though Scott had resided in a “free” territory, as established by the Missouri Compromise, he was not free because the Compromise was unconstitutional. Congress had overstepped its authority to pass “needful rules and regulations” in depriving slaveholders their property in those territories. In a part of the ruling that would relate to matters in Kansas at the time, Taney added that territorial legislatures had no power to bar slavery and, by implication, that states lacked the authority as well. Slaves were property and the taking of property “without due process” was prohibited under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.....
Read entire article at Kansas City Kansan
The Dred Scott case took several years to work its way through the courts, and the issues involved were many and complicated. In sum, however, although the jury in a lower state court ruled the Scotts legally free, upon appeal the Missouri State Supreme Court reversed the decision. The judges ruled that Scott’s presence in a free territory did not overrule the laws of Missouri to which he returned. Writing for the majority, Justice William Scott (not related to Dred Scott) praised God for instituting slavery, whereby men like Dred Scott could be elevated above the level of “miserable” Africans. “The introduction of slavery amongst us,” he continued, was “in the providence of God, who makes the evil passions of men subservient to His own glory, a means of placing that unhappy race within the pale of civilized nations.”
The matter might have been settled at that point, but in the process of defending her property, Irene Emerson had named her brother, John Sanford, to represent her in court. Sanford lived in New York. That made it an interstate matter, which allowed Scott to appeal the case to the federal courts. The Federal District Court in St. Louis upheld the state court’s ruling, whereupon Scott appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Incidentally, the Court Clerk misspelled Sanford’s name, thereby recording the case for posterity as Dred Scott v. Sandford.)
Historians speculate that the sons of Peter Blow, his original owner, paid Dred Scott’s legal bills to this point. Taking the case to Washington, however, may have been too expensive for them. Soon after his appeal to the nation’s highest court, a twelve page appeal for help appeared under Scott’s name. Whether or not Scott wrote it is subject to debate. It read, in part: “I have no money to pay anybody in Washington to speak for me. My fellow men, can any of you help me in my day of trial? Will nobody speak for me at Washington, even without hope of other reward than the blessings of a poor black man and his family?” On Christmas Eve 1854, Montgomery Blair, a prominent Washington attorney, who once practiced law in St. Louis, took Scott’s case pro bono.
The immediate issue facing the Supreme Court was whether people of African descent, free or slave, could be citizens of the United States. If not, then the case could not proceed, because Scott would not be entitled to use the federal courts. On March 6, 1857, the Court handed down its ruling. In brief, the Court ruled that under Article III of the United States Constitution, Scott was not a citizen. States had the power to allow blacks citizenship for purposes of state law (and several had), but, Taney wrote, that did not qualify them for citizenship under the U.S. Constitution and make them subject to federal law. This would be changed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that was adopted in the wake of the Civil War, but for the moment Scott’s case could not be heard in the federal courts and the Missouri Supreme Court decision stood.
Most legal scholars agree that Taney’s ruling should have ended there. Instead, he went on to declare that even though Scott had resided in a “free” territory, as established by the Missouri Compromise, he was not free because the Compromise was unconstitutional. Congress had overstepped its authority to pass “needful rules and regulations” in depriving slaveholders their property in those territories. In a part of the ruling that would relate to matters in Kansas at the time, Taney added that territorial legislatures had no power to bar slavery and, by implication, that states lacked the authority as well. Slaves were property and the taking of property “without due process” was prohibited under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.....