Scott V. Sandford (1857)

Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Dred Scott was held as a slave to Missouri resident Dr. John Emerson. In1834 Scott traveled with Dr. Emerson to the state of Illinois, and in 1836 to areas of present day Minnesota only to finally return back to Missouri in 1838. Slavery was forbidden in the state of Illinois and under the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was also forbidden in the traveled areas of Minnesota. Upon the death of his owner, Scott sued for his freedom on the grounds that since slavery was outlawed in the free territories he had temporarily resided in, he had become a “free” man there. While an initial ruling by a lower state court declared him free, this ruling was later overturned by the Missouri Supreme Court eventually leading the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Before addressing whether Scott was able to be deemed “free” or not, the first dispute to address arose over if a slave even had the standing/legal right to sue in a federal court. This was a question over the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. If Scott had this right, the Court had jurisdiction and the justices would be able to decide the merit of his claim, however, if not they could just dismiss the case. It was after settling this that the Court could move on to whether or not a single State had the power to make a slave a free citizen of not only that State, but all others as well. It was the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which declared that slavery was prohibited (except in the case of punishment for a crime) in “the territory ceded by France, under the name of Louisiana. . .north of the thirty-six degree thirty minute north latitude and not included within the limits of Missouri.” There was a conflict over whether or not Congress was authorized to pass such laws under the Constitution. Scott’s case was heavily dependent on the article in the Constitution which gave Congress the power to “dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.”

Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the court. He first explained that it was the view of the Court that “people of the Negro race” were not intended to be included under the term “citizen” in the Constitution. They were therefore, unable to claim any of the rights or privileges reserved for citizens (such as the right to due process of law). This decision alone made the case dismissible however in an effort to make more finite conclusions in the subject matter of slavery, the Court chose to provide a formal decision none the less. They concluded that regardless of Scott’s status outside Missouri, he remained a slave under Missouri Law. Taney reasoned that the provision to be able to amend the Constitution left room for righting those laws which some could consider unjust, but in its unaltered form, the Constitution was interpreted as it was intended to be by the framers at its adoption, which as he felt was “in relation to this unfortunate race,” noninclusive for a reason. He even pointed to two specific clauses in the Constitution he said deemed the ‘negro race’