English
Holli Curry
5/19/11
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Since most slaves’ birth dates were not officially recorded, nobody knows Dred Scott’s exact date of birth, but most historians think it was around the year 1800. Dred was owned by Peter and Elizabeth Blow in Virginia, until they moved to St. Louis in 1830. In 1831, both Peter and Elizabeth Blow died, and Dred was sold to John Emerson, a doctor who was living in St. Louis (Lukes 12). In 1836, Dred Scott married Harriet Robinson, who was still a teenager at the time, and the ownership of Harriet was then transferred to John Emerson (Lukes 13). Dred and Harriet Scott had two daughters: Eliza and Lizzie. Eliza was born in 1838 and Lizzie was born between 1840 and 1843 (Famous). Dred Scott died of tuberculosis on September 17, 1858, only 17 months after becoming a free man (Gunderson 39).
Dred Scott tried to buy his freedom from Mrs. Emerson, but she refused (Britannica). So, on April 6, 1846, Dred and Harriet Scott sued Irene Emerson in Missouri for their freedom (Lukes 16). They originally sued as two separate cases, one for Dred and one for Harriet, but the judge combined them into one case under Dred’s name because the legal issues were identical (Lukes 18). The trial didn’t begin in the Circuit Court of St. Louis until more than year later on June 30, 1847 (Lukes 19). Dred Scott’s lawyer argued that Scott became a free man when John Emerson took Dred with him to live in the free state of Illinois (Lukes 20). The defense argued that Scott’s attorney could not prove that Mrs. Emerson had actually kept Dred Scott as a slave in Illinois (Lukes 21). The judge ruled that since the plaintiff was not able to prove he was kept as a slave in Illinois, Dred and Harriet Scott would remain Irene Emerson’s slaves in Missouri (Lukes 22). That same day, the Scotts’ attorney appealed the court ruling, and the Missouri Supreme Court ordered that there would be a retrial (Lukes 23).
The second trial did not begin until January 12, 1850, in the St. Louis Circuit Court (Lukes 26). In the second trial, the jury granted the Scotts their freedom (Lukes 28). This defeat caused Irene Emerson to make an appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court (Lukes 29). On March 22, 1852, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the state of Missouri did not have the right to enforce the laws of the state of Illinois. Dred and Harriet Scott, two years after being granted their freedom, had to go back to being Mrs. Emerson’s slaves as a result of this ruling (Lukes 38).
During the three-year period between the first and second trial, Irene Emerson remarried and moved to New England with her husband. She left her affairs with her brother, John Sanford (Hall). On November 2, 1853, Dred Scott filed a case against Sanford (Gunderson 32). In May of 1854, the United States Circuit Court confirmed the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision that the state of Missouri did not have the right to enforce the laws of Illinois, and that Dred and Harriet Scott were the lawful property of Mrs. Emerson and now John Sanford. Dred Scott appealed to the United States Supreme Court (Gunderson 34). In 1856, the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford was heard by the United States Supreme Court. The case is called “Dred Scott v. Sandford” because “Sanford” was misspelled in court reports and was never changed back (Gunderson 35).
The Supreme Court made its decision, written by Chief Justice Taney, on March 6, 1857. The three key rulings were:
- Dred Scott was not a citizen, so he could not sue in a federal court.
- Scott was Emerson’s property, and under the fifth amendment, a person’s property could not be taken without due process of law.
- Illinois law did not apply in Missouri, so Scott became a slave again when he went back to Missouri (Gunderson 37).
The Supreme Court’s decision that blacks were property and not people increased the outrage about slavery, especially in the northern states. The reaction of the North and the reaction of the South to the Supreme Court decision were very different. The difference in opinion can be seen in the editorial columns in northern and southern newspapers. For example, “The Constitutionalist of Augusta, Georgia wrote: ‘Southern opinion upon the subject of southern slavery... is now the supreme law of the land... and opposition to southern opinion upon this subject is now opposition to the Constitution and morally treason to the Government.’” (Lukes 74) but a northern paper, the Chicago Tribune, wrote, “‘This decision has sapped the Constitution of its glorious and distinctive features, and seeks to pervert it into a barbarous and unchristian channel... To say... that a Free People can respect or will obey a decision so fraught with disastrous consequences to the People and their Liberties, is to dream of impossibilities.’” (Lukes 73). The national outrage led to a rise in Republican candidates and to Abraham Lincoln’s election as President of the United States, and it eventually led to the Civil War.
But what if the United States Supreme Court had given a different decision? What if Dred Scott had actually won his case before the Supreme Court? The obvious difference is that Dred and Harriet Scott would have been declared to be free persons and not slaves. And the North might not have been so angry, Lincoln might not have been elected, and the Civil War might have been avoided or delayed. It is easy to imagine that after hearing about the case, other slaves in similar situations would have wanted to sue for their own freedom. These lawsuits probably would have made slaveholders angry and might have caused the southern states to become active in the same way that the actual decision caused the northern states to become active. Maybe instead of Abraham Lincoln being elected President, a southern candidate who was pro-slavery might have been elected. And, instead of the south wanting to secede from the Union, they might have strengthened slavery laws in the United States. There is no way to know for sure what would have happened if Dred Scott had won his case before the Supreme Court, but it is safe to say that the fighting about slavery would have continued until the issue was settled for good.
One of the more interesting points of Dred Scott’s life story is that after all of the years of suing for his freedom in court and all of the years of Mrs. Emerson fighting to keep him as a slave, it was Mrs. Emerson’s second husband who ended up giving the Scotts their freedom. Mrs. Emerson’s second husband was named Calvin Chaffee, and he was a Republican congressman who was opposed to slavery. Congressman Chaffee did not know that his wife’s first husband had owned the Scotts until close to the time that the Supreme Court cases were finished. He claimed that he was not involved in the case whatsoever, and that his lawyer had instructed him to keep quiet until the court case had finished. Two months after the Supreme Court decision, on May 26, 1857, Dred Scott and his family were transferred to Dred’s childhood friend, Taylor Blow who was the son of his original owners, Elizabeth and Peter Blow. That same day, Taylor Blow granted the Scotts their freedom. After being freed, Dred Scott worked as a hotel porter in St. Louis until his death of tuberculosis the next year (Gunderson 39).But what if the United States Supreme Court had given a different decision? What if Dred Scott had actually won his case before the Supreme Court? The obvious difference is that Dred and Harriet Scott would have been declared to be free persons and not slaves. And the North might not have been so angry, Lincoln might not have been elected, and the Civil War might have been avoided or delayed. It is easy to imagine that after hearing about the case, other slaves in similar situations would have wanted to sue for their own freedom. These lawsuits probably would have made slaveholders angry and might have caused the southern states to become active in the same way that the actual decision caused the northern states to become active. Maybe instead of Abraham Lincoln being elected President, a southern candidate who was pro-slavery might have been elected. And, instead of the south wanting to secede from the Union, they might have strengthened slavery laws in the United States. There is no way to know for sure what would have happened if Dred Scott had won his case before the Supreme Court, but it is safe to say that the fighting about slavery would have continued until the issue was settled for good.
The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford was one of the most important decisions about slavery in the United States. Even though Dred Scott lost his case before the Supreme Court, the outcome of the case sped up the movement to abolish slavery. While it is interesting to think of what might have happened if Scott had won the case, there is no way to know for sure what really would have happened. What we do know is that Dred Scott’s courageous fight for his and his wife’s freedom eventually helped all the slaves to become free.
