Home  ›  what led to the dred scott v sandford case

what led to the dred scott v sandford case

Written By Sunday, April 10, 2022 Add Comment Edit

1857 U.Southward. Supreme Courtroom case on the citizenship of African-Americans

U.s.a. Supreme Court example

Dred Scott v. Sandford

Supreme Courtroom of the United States
Argued February 11–14, 1856
Reargued December fifteen–xviii, 1856
Decided March six, 1857
Full instance name Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford
Citations 60 U.S. 393 (more than)

19 How. 393; 15 L. Ed. 691; 1856 WL 8721; 1856 U.S. LEXIS 472
Determination Opinion
Case history
Prior Judgment for defendant, C.C.D. Mo.
Holding
Judgment reversed and conform dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
  1. Persons of African descent cannot be and were never intended to be citizens under the United states of america Constitution. Plaintiff is without standing to file a conform.
  2. The Property Clause is applicable only to lands possessed at the fourth dimension of the Constitution'due south ratification (1787). Every bit such, Congress cannot ban slavery in the territories. The Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional.
  3. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal regime from freeing slaves brought into federal territories.
Court membership
Principal Justice
Roger B. Taney
Associate Justices
John McLean· James Thou. Wayne
John Catron· Peter Five. Daniel
Samuel Nelson· Robert C. Grier
Benjamin R. Curtis· John A. Campbell
Instance opinions
Majority Taney, joined by Wayne, Catron, Daniel, Nelson, Grier, Campbell
Concurrence Wayne
Concurrence Catron
Concurrence Daniel
Concurrence Nelson, joined past Grier
Concurrence Grier
Concurrence Campbell
Dissent McLean
Dissent Curtis
Laws practical
U.S. Const. amend. V; U.S. Const. art. IV, § iii, cl. 2; Strader v. Graham; Missouri Compromise

Superseded past
U.Southward. Const. amends. XIII, XIV, XV;
Civil Rights Human activity of 1866;
Kleppe v. New United mexican states (1976) (in part)[1]

Dred Scott v. Sandford ,[a] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark conclusion of the U.s. Supreme Court in which the Court held that the United States Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for people of African descent, regardless of whether they were enslaved or complimentary, and then the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not utilise to them.[iii] [4] The Supreme Court'due south decision has been widely denounced, both for how overtly racist the decision was and its crucial office in the beginning of the Ceremonious War four years later.[five] Legal scholar Bernard Schwartz said that it "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions." Principal Justice Charles Evans Hughes called it the Courtroom'due south greatest self-inflicted wound."[6] Historian Junius P. Rodriguez said that it is "universally condemned equally the U.S. Supreme Court's worst decision."[vii] Historian David Thomas Konig said that it was "unquestionably, our court's worst decision ever."[8]

The determination was made in the instance of Dred Scott, an enslaved black man whose owners had taken him from Missouri, a slave-belongings state, into Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was illegal. When his owners later brought him back to Missouri, Scott sued in courtroom for his liberty and claimed that because he had been taken into "free" U.S. territory, he had automatically been freed and was legally no longer a slave. Scott sued first in Missouri state courtroom, which ruled that he was still a slave under its law. He and then sued in U.S. federal courtroom, which ruled against him by deciding that it had to apply Missouri law to the case. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision against Dred Scott. In an opinion written by Main Justice Roger Taney, the Court ruled that people of African descent "are not included, and were not intended to be included, nether the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States". Taney supported his ruling with an extended survey of American state and local laws from the time of the Constitution's drafting in 1787 that purported to show that a "perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery". Because the Court ruled that Scott was not an American citizen, he was too not a denizen of any land and, appropriately, could never establish the "diversity of citizenship" that Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires for a U.S. federal courtroom to be able to exercise jurisdiction over a example.[three] Afterward ruling on those issues surrounding Scott, Taney continued further and struck downward the entire Missouri Compromise as a limitation on slavery that exceeded the U.S. Congress's ramble powers.

Although Taney and several other justices hoped the determination would permanently settle the slavery controversy, which was increasingly dividing the American public, the conclusion'south event was the complete opposite.[nine] Taney's majority stance suited the slaveholding states, just was intensely decried in all the other states.[iv] The determination inflamed the national debate over slavery and deepened the split up that led ultimately to the Civil War. In 1865, subsequently the Union's victory, the Court'southward ruling in Dred Scott was superseded by the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.South. Constitution, which abolished slavery, and the Fourteenth Subpoena, whose first department guaranteed citizenship for "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Background [edit]

Political setting [edit]

The Missouri Compromise created the slave-property country Missouri (Mo., xanthous) but prohibited slavery in the residuum of the former Louisiana Territory (here, marked Missouri Territory 1812, light-green) north of the 36°30' North parallel.

In the late 1810s, a major political dispute arose over the creation of new American states from the vast territory the United states had acquired from France in 1803 through the Louisiana Purchase.[x] The dispute centered on whether the new states would be "free" states, similar the Northern states, in which slavery would exist illegal, or whether they would be "slave" states, similar the Southern states, in which slavery would be legal.[10] The Southern states wanted the new states to exist slave states in order to enhance their own political and economic ability. The Northern states wanted the new states to be free states for their own political and economic reasons, as well equally their moral concerns over allowing the institution of slavery to expand.

In 1820, the U.South. Congress passed legislation known every bit the "Missouri Compromise" that was intended to resolve the dispute. The Compromise first admitted Maine into the Marriage as a gratuitous state, then created Missouri out of a portion of the Louisiana Purchase territory and admitted it equally a slave state; at the aforementioned time information technology prohibited slavery in the surface area north of the Parallel 36°30′ northward, where well-nigh of the territory lay.[ten] The legal furnishings of a slaveowner taking his slaves from Missouri into the free territory north of the 36°30′ north parallel, equally well every bit the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise itself, eventually came to a head in the Dred Scott instance.

Dred Scott and John Emerson [edit]

Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia around 1799.[11] Little is known of his early years.[12] His owner, Peter Blow, moved to Alabama in 1818, taking his six slaves along to work a farm near Huntsville. In 1830, Blow gave up farming and settled in St. Louis, Missouri, where he sold Scott to U.S. Army surgeon Dr. John Emerson.[xiii] After purchasing Scott, Emerson took him to Fort Armstrong in Illinois. A free state, Illinois had been complimentary as a territory under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and had prohibited slavery in its constitution in 1819 when it was admitted as a country.

In 1836, Emerson moved with Scott from Illinois to Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin territory in what has become the state of Minnesota. Slavery in the Wisconsin Territory (some of which, including Fort Snelling, was role of the Louisiana Purchase) was prohibited by the U.Due south. Congress under the Missouri Compromise. During his stay at Fort Snelling, Scott married Harriet Robinson in a ceremonious ceremony by Harriet's owner, Major Lawrence Taliaferro, a justice of the peace who was also an Indian amanuensis. The anniversary would accept been unnecessary had Dred Scott been a slave, as slave marriages had no recognition in the police force.[14] [13]

In 1837, the army ordered Emerson to Jefferson Barracks War machine Mail, south of St. Louis. Emerson left Scott and his married woman at Fort Snelling, where he leased their services out for profit. By hiring Scott out in a free state, Emerson was effectively bringing the institution of slavery into a free land, which was a direct violation of the Missouri Compromise, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Wisconsin Enabling Human activity.[14]

Irene Sanford Emerson [edit]

Earlier the terminate of the year, the regular army reassigned Emerson to Fort Jesup in Louisiana, where Emerson married Eliza Irene Sanford in February 1838. Emerson sent for Scott and Harriet, who proceeded to Louisiana to serve their master and his wife. Inside months, Emerson was transferred back to Fort Snelling. While en route to Fort Snelling, Scott'due south daughter Eliza was born on a steamboat underway on the Mississippi River between Illinois and what would become Iowa. Because Eliza was built-in in complimentary territory, she was technically born as a free person under both federal and state laws. Upon entering Louisiana, the Scotts could take sued for their freedom, but did not. One scholar suggests that, in all likelihood, the Scotts would have been granted their freedom by a Louisiana court, every bit it had respected laws of free states that slaveholders forfeited their correct to slaves if they brought them in for extended periods. This had been the belongings in Louisiana state courts for more than twenty years.[fourteen]

Toward the end of 1838, the army reassigned Emerson dorsum to Fort Snelling. By 1840, Emerson'due south married woman Irene returned to St. Louis with their slaves, while Dr. Emerson served in the Seminole War. While in St. Louis, she hired them out. In 1842, Emerson left the regular army. After he died in the Iowa Territory in 1843, his widow Irene inherited his estate, including the Scotts. For three years after John Emerson'due south decease, she connected to lease out the Scotts as hired slaves. In 1846, Scott attempted to purchase his and his family'southward freedom, but Irene Emerson refused, prompting Scott to resort to legal recourse.[15]

Procedural history [edit]

Scott v. Emerson [edit]

First state circuit court trial [edit]

Having been unsuccessful in his attempt to purchase his freedom, Dred Scott, with the help of his legal advisers, sued Emerson for his freedom in the Excursion Court of St. Louis County on Apr half-dozen, 1846.[sixteen] : 36 A separate petition was filed for his wife Harriet, making them the start married couple to file freedom suits in tandem in their 50-yr history.[17] : 232 They received financial assistance from the family unit of Dred's previous owner, Peter Accident.[14] Blow's daughter Charlotte was married to Joseph Charless, an officer at the Bank of Missouri. Charless signed legal documents as security for the Scotts and after secured the services of the banking company'southward attorney, Samuel Mansfield Bay, for the trial.[thirteen]

It was expected that the Scotts would win their freedom with relative ease.[14] [17] : 241 By 1846, dozens of freedom suits had been won in Missouri past former slaves.[17] Most had claimed their legal correct to freedom on the basis that they, or their mothers, had previously lived in free states or territories.[17] Among the nigh of import legal precedents were Winny v. Whitesides [eighteen] and Rachel v. Walker. [19] In Winny 5. Whitesides, the Missouri Supreme Courtroom had ruled in 1824 that a person who had been held as a slave in Illinois, where slavery was illegal, and then brought to Missouri, was free by virtue of residence in a free country.[16] : 41 In Rachel v. Walker, the state supreme court had ruled that a U.S. Army officer who took a slave to a military post in a territory where slavery was prohibited and retained her there for several years, had thereby "forfeit[ed] his property".[sixteen] : 42 Rachel, like Dred Scott, had accompanied her enslaver to Fort Snelling.[16]

Scott was represented by three dissimilar lawyers from the filing of the original petition to the time of the actual trial, over one year later. The first was Francis B. Murdoch, a prolific freedom suit attorney who abruptly left St. Louis.[twenty] [sixteen] : 38 Murdoch was replaced past Charles D. Drake, an in-constabulary of the Accident family.[sixteen] When Drake as well left the state, Samuel Thousand. Bay took over every bit the Scotts' lawyer.[xvi] Irene Emerson was represented by George W. Goode, a proslavery lawyer from Virginia.[21] : 130 Past the fourth dimension the case went to trial, it had been reassigned from Judge John Thousand. Krum, who was proslavery, to Judge Alexander Hamilton, who was known to be sympathetic to freedom suits.[13]

Dred Scott v. Irene Emerson finally went to trial for the first time on June 30, 1847.[21] : 130 Henry Peter Accident testified in courtroom that his father had owned Dred and sold him to John Emerson.[16] : 44 The fact that Scott had been taken to alive on gratis soil was clearly established through depositions from witnesses who had known Scott and Dr. Emerson at Fort Armstrong and Fort Snelling.[21] : 130–131 Grocer Samuel Russell testified that he had hired the Scotts from Irene Emerson and paid her father, Alexander Sanford, for their services.[21] Upon cross exam, however, Russell admitted that the leasing arrangements had actually been made by his married woman, Adeline.[21]

Thus, Russell's testimony was ruled hearsay, and the jury returned a verdict for Emerson.[13] This created a seemingly contradictory issue in which Scott was ordered by the court to remain Irene Emerson's slave, because he had been unable to prove that he was previously Irene Emerson's slave.[13]

Starting time country supreme court appeal [edit]

Bay moved immediately for a new trial on the footing that Scott's case had been lost due to a technicality which could be rectified, rather than the facts.[16] : 47 Guess Hamilton finally issued the order for a new trial on December 2, 1847.[16] Ii days afterwards, Emerson'southward lawyer objected to a new trial by filing a bill of exceptions.[sixteen] [21] : 131 The case was then taken on writ of error to the Supreme Court of Missouri.[13] Scott's new lawyers, Alexander P. Field and David N. Hall, argued that the writ of fault was inappropriate considering the lower court had not even so issued a final judgment.[sixteen] : 50 The land supreme courtroom agreed unanimously with their position and dismissed Emerson's appeal on June 30, 1848.[16] The principal issue before the courtroom at this stage was procedural and no noun issues were discussed.[16]

Second state excursion court trial [edit]

Before the land supreme court had convened, Goode had presented a motion on behalf of Emerson to have Scott taken into custody and hired out.[21] On March 17, 1848, Judge Hamilton issued the order to the St. Louis County sheriff.[16] [b] Anyone hiring Scott had to mail service a bail of half-dozen-hundred dollars.[16] : 49 Wages he earned during that time were placed in escrow, to exist paid to the party that prevailed in the lawsuit.[16] Scott would remain in the sheriff'south custody or hired out by him until March 18, 1857.[16] Ane of Scott's lawyers, David North. Hall, hired him starting March 17, 1849.[17] : 261

The St. Louis Burn of 1849, a cholera epidemic, and two continuances delayed the retrial in the St. Louis Circuit Court until January 12, 1850.[13] [16] : 51 Irene Emerson was now defended by Hugh A. Garland and Lyman D. Norris, while Scott was represented by Field and Hall.[16] Judge Alexander Hamilton was presiding.[13] The proceedings were similar to the first trial.[16] : 52 The aforementioned depositions from Catherine A. Anderson and Miles H. Clark were used to establish that Dr. Emerson had taken Scott to free territory.[16]

This time, the hearsay problem was surmounted by a deposition from Adeline Russell stating that she had hired the Scotts from Irene Emerson, thereby proving that Emerson claimed them as her slaves.[16] Samuel Russell testified in court once again that he had paid for their services.[16] The defence then changed strategy and argued in their summation that Mrs. Emerson had every right to hire out Dred Scott, because he had lived with Dr. Emerson at Fort Armstrong and Fort Snelling nether military jurisdiction, non under ceremonious constabulary.[sixteen] [21] : 132 In doing so, the defense ignored the precedent prepare by Rachel v. Walker. [21] In his rebuttal, Hall stated that the fact that they were military posts did not affair, and pointed out that Dr. Emerson had left Scott behind at Fort Snelling, hired out to others, subsequently being reassigned to a new post.[22]

The jury rapidly returned a verdict in favor of Dred Scott, nominally making him a complimentary homo.[21] [xvi] : 53 Estimate Hamilton declared Harriet, Eliza and Lizzie Scott to be gratis as well.[sixteen] Garland moved immediately for a new trial, and was overruled.[22] [16] : 55 On February thirteen, 1850, Emerson's defense filed a beak of exceptions, which was certified by Judge Hamilton, setting into motility another entreatment to the Missouri Supreme Courtroom.[xvi] Counsel for the opposing sides signed an understanding that moving forward, simply Dred Scott v. Irene Emerson would be advanced, and that whatever decision made by the loftier court would utilise to Harriet's suit, also.[16] : 43 In 1849 or 1850, Irene Emerson left St. Louis and moved to Springfield, Massachusetts.[sixteen] : 55 Her brother, John F. A. Sanford, continued looking after her business interests when she left,[23] and her deviation had no impact on the example.[16] : 56

2nd state supreme court appeal [edit]

Both parties filed briefs with the Supreme Court of Missouri on March 8, 1850.[16] : 57 A busy docket delayed consideration of the instance until the October term.[21] : 133 Past so, the issue of slavery had become politically charged, even within the judiciary.[24] [21] : 134 Although the Missouri Supreme Court had non yet overturned precedent in freedom suits, in the 1840s, the court's proslavery justices had explicitly stated their opposition to freeing slaves.[24] Subsequently the courtroom convened on October 25, 1850, the two justices who were proslavery anti-Benton Democrats – William Barclay Napton and James Harvey Birch – persuaded John Ferguson Ryland, a Benton Democrat, to join them in a unanimous decision that Dred Scott remained a slave nether Missouri law.[21] [16] : 60 Nevertheless, Judge Napton delayed writing the court'southward opinion for months.[21] And so in August 1851, both Napton and Birch lost their seats in the Missouri Supreme Courtroom, following the state's first supreme court election, with only Ryland remaining as an incumbent.[21] The case thus needed to be considered again by the newly elected court.[21] : 135 The reorganized Missouri Supreme Courtroom now included two "moderates" – Hamilton Gamble and John Ryland – and 1 staunch proslavery justice, William Scott.[24]

David North. Hall had prepared the brief for Dred Scott, simply died in March 1851.[sixteen] : 57, 61 Alexander P. Field continued lone every bit counsel for Dred Scott, and resubmitted the aforementioned briefs from 1850 for both sides.[16] On Nov 29, 1851, the case was taken under consideration, on written briefs alone, and a decision was reached.[16] However, before Judge Scott could write the court's opinion, Lyman Norris, co-counsel for Irene Emerson, obtained permission to submit a new cursory he had been preparing, to replace the original one submitted by Garland.[16] : 56,61

Norris's brief has been characterized as "a sweeping denunciation of the authority of both the [Northwest] Ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri Compromise."[16] : 62 Although he stopped short of questioning their constitutionality, Norris questioned their applicability and criticized the early Missouri Supreme Courtroom, ridiculing onetime Justice George Tompkins as "the great apostle of liberty at that day."[24] [16] Reviewing the court's by decisions on freedom suits, Norris acknowledged that if Rachel v. Walker was immune to stand up, his client would lose.[24] Norris then challenged the concept of "in one case free, always free", and asserted that the courtroom under Tompkins had been wrong to rule that the Ordinance of 1787 remained in strength after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788.[24] Finally, he argued that the Missouri Compromise should exist disregarded whenever it interfered with Missouri police, and that the laws of other states should not be enforced, if their enforcement would cause Missouri citizens to lose their property.[24] In support of his argument, he cited Principal Justice Roger B. Taney'south opinion in the United States Supreme Court example Strader v. Graham, which argued that the condition of a slave returning from a free state must be determined by the slave state itself.[24] [16] : 63 Co-ordinate to historian Walter Ehrlich, the closing of Norris's brief was "a racist harangue that not only revealed the prejudices of its author, just also indicated how the Dred Scott example had become a vehicle for the expression of such views".[16] : 63 Noting that Norris's proslavery "doctrines" were afterward incorporated into the court'due south final decision,[16] : 62 Ehrlich writes (emphasis his):

From this point on, the Dred Scott case clearly changed from a genuine liberty suit to the controversial political upshot for which it became infamous in American history. [xvi]

On March 22, 1852, Approximate William Scott appear the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court that Dred Scott remained a slave, and ordered the trial courtroom's judgment to exist reversed.[21] : 137 Judge Ryland concurred, while Master Justice Hamilton Take chances dissented.[24] The majority opinion written by Judge Scott focused on the issue of comity or conflict of laws,[21] and relied on "states' rights" rhetoric:[sixteen] : 65

Every State has the correct of determining how far, in a spirit of comity, it will respect the laws of other States. Those laws have no intrinsic right to be enforced beyond the limits of the State for which they were enacted. The respect allowed them will depend birthday on their conformity to the policy of our institutions. No State is bound to carry into upshot enactments conceived in a spirit hostile to that which pervades her own laws.[25]

Gauge Scott did non deny the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, and acknowledged that its prohibition of slavery was "absolute", but only within the specified territory.[16] Thus, a slave crossing the edge could obtain his liberty, but only within the courtroom of the gratis land.[16] Rejecting the courtroom's own precedent, Scott argued that "'Once complimentary' did not necessarily mean 'always costless.'"[16] : 66 He cited the Kentucky Court of Appeals decision in Graham v. Strader, which had held that a Kentucky slaveowner who permitted a slave to go to Ohio temporarily, did not forfeit ownership of the slave.[16] To justify overturning three decades of precedent, Guess Scott argued that circumstances had changed:[21]

Times now are non every bit they were when the sometime decisions on this subject were made. Since and then not simply individuals but States have been possessed with a nighttime and fell spirit in relation to slavery, whose gratification is sought in the pursuit of measures, whose inevitable outcome must be the overthrow and destruction of our authorities. Under such circumstances information technology does not behoove the State of Missouri to show the least eyebrow to whatever mensurate which might gratify this spirit. She is willing to presume her total responsibleness for the beingness of slavery within her limits, nor does she seek to share or dissever it with others.[25]

On March 23, 1852, the mean solar day after the Missouri Supreme Courtroom decision had been announced, Irene Emerson's lawyers filed an club in the St. Louis Excursion Court for the bonds signed by the Accident family to embrace the Scotts' court costs; return of the slaves themselves; and transfer of their wages earned over iv years, plus 6 percent interest.[xiii] On June 29, 1852, Judge Hamilton overruled the order.[xvi] : lxx

Scott five. Sandford [edit]

The case looked hopeless, and the Blow family could no longer pay for Scott's legal costs. Scott also lost both of his lawyers when Alexander Field moved to Louisiana and David Hall died. The example was undertaken pro bono past Roswell Field, who employed Scott every bit a janitor. Field likewise discussed the case with LaBeaume, who had taken over the lease on the Scotts in 1851.[26] Later on the Missouri Supreme Courtroom decision, Judge Hamilton turned downwards a request past Emerson'south lawyers to release the rent payments from escrow and to evangelize the slaves into their owner's custody.[thirteen]

In 1853, Dred Scott once again sued his electric current owner John Sanford, but this fourth dimension in federal court. Sanford returned to New York and the federal courts had variety jurisdiction under Article Three, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. In add-on to the existing complaints, Scott alleged that Sanford had assaulted his family and held them captive for 6 hours on January 1, 1853.[27]

At trial in 1854, Approximate Robert William Wells directed the jury to rely on Missouri constabulary on the question of Scott'southward freedom. Since the Missouri Supreme Court had held that Scott remained a slave, the jury plant in favor of Sanford. Scott then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the clerk misspelled the defendant's name, and the instance was recorded as Dred Scott v. Sandford, with an e'er-erroneous title. Scott was represented earlier the Supreme Courtroom by Montgomery Blair and George Ticknor Curtis, whose brother Benjamin was a Supreme Court Justice. Sanford was represented by Reverdy Johnson and Henry S. Geyer.[13]

Sandford equally defendant [edit]

When the example was filed, the two sides agreed on a statement of facts that claimed Scott had been sold by Dr. Emerson to John Sanford, though this was a legal fiction. Dr. Emerson had died in 1843, and Dred Scott had filed his 1847 conform against Irene Emerson. There is no record of Dred Scott'due south transfer to Sanford or of his transfer back to Irene. John Sanford died before long before Scott's manumission, and Scott was not listed in the probate records of Sanford'south estate.[26] Also, Sanford was not acting as Dr. Emerson'due south executor, as he was never appointed by a probate court, and the Emerson estate had been settled when the federal instance was filed.[14]

The murky circumstances of buying led many to conclude the parties to Dred Scott v. Sandford contrived to create a test case.[15] [26] [27] Mrs. Emerson's remarriage to abolitionist U.Southward. Representative Calvin C. Chaffee seemed suspicious to contemporaries, and Sanford was idea to exist a front and to have allowed himself to be sued, despite non really being Scott'southward possessor. Nevertheless, Sanford had been involved in the case since 1847, before his sister married Chaffee. He had secured counsel for his sis in the state case, and he engaged the same lawyer for his own defense force in the federal case.[15] Sanford also consented to be represented by genuine pro-slavery advocates before the Supreme Courtroom, rather than to put up a token defence force.

Influence of President Buchanan [edit]

Historians discovered that afterward the Supreme Courtroom heard arguments in the case but before it issued a ruling, President-elect James Buchanan wrote to his friend, Supreme Court Acquaintance Justice John Catron, to ask whether the case would be decided past the Courtroom before his inauguration in March 1857.[28] Buchanan hoped that the determination would quell unrest in the country over the slavery issue by issuing a ruling to take it out of political argue.

Buchanan later on successfully pressured Associate Justice Robert Cooper Grier, a Northerner, to join the Southern majority in Dred Scott to prevent the appearance that the determination was made forth sectional lines.[29] Biographer Jean H. Baker articulates the view that Buchanan'south use of political pressure level on a fellow member of a sitting courtroom was regarded so, as at present, to exist highly improper.[30] Republicans fueled speculation as to Buchanan's influence by publicizing that Taney had secretly informed Buchanan of the decision. Buchanan alleged in his countdown address that the slavery question would "be rapidly and finally settled" by the Supreme Court.[31] [14]

Supreme Court decision [edit]

On March 6, 1857, the U.South. Supreme Court ruled against Dred Scott in a 7–2 conclusion that fills over 200 pages in the United States Reports.[10] The decision contains opinions from all 9 justices, merely the "majority opinion" has always been the focus of the controversy.[32]

Opinion of the Court [edit]

Seven justices formed the majority and joined an stance written by master justice Roger Taney. Taney began with what he saw as the cadre issue in the instance: whether or not black people could possess federal citizenship under the U.Southward. Constitution.[10]

The question is simply this: Tin a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this state, and sold every bit slaves, go a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied [sic] past that instrument to the citizen?

— Dred Scott, threescore U.S. at 403.

In reply, the Court ruled that they could not. It held that black people could not be American citizens, and therefore a lawsuit to which they were a party could never qualify for the "diversity of citizenship" that Article Iii of the Constitution requires for American federal courts to have jurisdiction over cases that practice not involve federal questions.[10] The primary rationale for the Court'due south ruling was Taney'southward assertion that black African slaves and their descendants were never intended to be part of the American social and political landscape.[10]

We recall ... that [black people] are non included, and were non intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore merits none of the rights and privileges which that musical instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the Us. On the opposite, they were at that fourth dimension [of America'due south founding] considered every bit a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the ascendant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject area to their authority, and had no rights or privileges just such every bit those who held the power and the Authorities might choose to grant them.

— Dred Scott, threescore U.S. at 404–05.[33]

Taney then extensively reviewed laws from the original American states that involved the status of black Americans at the time of the Constitution'southward drafting in 1787.[10] He concluded that these laws showed that a "perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected betwixt the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery".[34] Thus, he concluded, black people were non American citizens, and could not sue as citizens in federal courts.[x] This meant that U.Southward. states lacked the power to alter the legal status of black people past granting them state citizenship.[32]

It is difficult at this twenty-four hours to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and aware portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. ... They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order ... and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.

— Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 407.

This holding normally would accept ended the conclusion, since it tending of Dred Scott'due south example. Only Taney did non conclude the matter before the Court in the normal way.[10] He went on to appraise the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise itself, writing that the Compromise's legal provisions intended to free slaves who were living north of the 36°N latitude line in the western territories. Still, in the Court'south judgment, this would establish the government depriving slaveowners of their property—since slaves were legally the belongings of their owners—without due process of constabulary, which is forbidden under the Fifth Subpoena to the Constitution.[35] Taney also reasoned that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights implicitly precluded any possibility of ramble rights for black African slaves and their descendants.[32] Thus, Taney ended:

Now, ... the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. ... Upon these considerations, it is the stance of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a denizen from holding and owning holding of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the [36°Due north 36' latitude] line therein mentioned, is non warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void.

— Dred Scott, sixty U.S. at 451–52.

Taney held that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, marker the first time since the 1803 example Marbury v. Madison that the Supreme Courtroom had struck downwards a federal law, though the Missouri Compromise had already been effectively overridden by the Kansas–Nebraska Act. Taney fabricated this argument on a narrow definition of the Property Clause of Department three of Article 4 of the Constitution. The Property Clause states, "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States..." Taney made the argument that the Property Clause "applied only to the property which u.s. held in common at that time, and has no reference whatever to whatsoever territory or other property which the new sovereignty might subsequently itself larn."[36] Substantially, Taney asserted that because the Northwest Territory was not part of the United states at the time of the Constitution's ratification, Congress did non take the authority to ban slavery in the territory. Therefore according to Taney, the Missouri Compromise exceeded the scope of Congress's powers and was unconstitutional, and thus Dred Scott was still a slave regardless of his fourth dimension spent in the parts of the Northwest Territory that were north of 36°N.[37] Therefore, he was withal a slave nether Missouri law, and the Court had to follow Missouri police force in the matter. For all these reasons, the Courtroom concluded, Dred Scott could non bring arrange in U.S. federal court.[37]

Dissents [edit]

Justices Benjamin Robbins Curtis and John McLean were the only two dissenters from the Court'south decision, and both filed dissenting opinions.

Curtis's 67-folio dissent argued that Taney's assertion that black people could not possess federal U.South. citizenship was historically and legally baseless.[32] Curtis pointed out that at the fourth dimension of the Constitution'south adoption in 1789, black men could vote in 5 of the 13 states. Legally, that made them citizens both of their individual states and of the United States federally. Curtis cited many state statutes and state court decisions supporting his position. His dissent was "extremely persuasive", and information technology prompted Taney to add xviii additional pages to his opinion in an attempt to rebut Curtis's arguments.[32]

McLean's dissent accounted the argument that black people could not be citizens "more a matter of taste than of law". He attacked much of the Court's determination as obiter dicta that was non legally authoritative on the ground that in one case the court determined that it did non have jurisdiction to hear Scott'southward case, it should have simply dismissed the activeness, rather than passing judgment on the claim of the claims.

Curtis and McLean both attacked the Court'southward overturning of the Missouri Compromise on its merits. They noted that it was not necessary to determine the question and that none of the authors of the Constitution had ever objected on ramble grounds to the Congress's adoption of the antislavery provisions of the Northwest Ordinance passed by the Continental Congress or the subsequent acts that barred slavery northward of 36°thirty' North, or the prohibition on importing slaves from overseas passed in 1808. Curtis said slavery was not listed in the constitution as a "natural right", only rather a creation of municipal law. He pointed out the constitution said "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and brand all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and zip in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United states, or of whatsoever particular State." Since slavery was not mentioned as an exception, he felt a prohibition of it savage within the scope of needed rules and regulations Congress was free to pass.[38]

Reactions [edit]

The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott was "greeted with unmitigated wrath from every segment of the United States except the slave holding states."[32] The American political historian Robert G. McCloskey described:

The tempest of malediction that burst over the judges seems to have stunned them; far from extinguishing the slavery controversy, they had fanned its flames and had, moreover, deeply endangered the security of the judicial arm of government. No such vilification as this had been heard even in the wrathful days following the Alien and Sedition Acts. Taney's stance was assailed by the Northern press as a wicked "stump speech" and was shamefully misquoted and distorted. "If the people obey this conclusion," said i newspaper, "they disobey God."[37]

Many Republicans, including Abraham Lincoln, who was rapidly condign the leading Republican in Illinois, regarded the determination as part of a plot to expand and somewhen impose the legalization of slavery throughout all of united states.[39] Some southern extremists wanted all states to recognize slavery as a ramble right. Lincoln rejected the court'south majority opinion that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution," pointing out that the constitution did not e'er mention property in reference to slaves and in fact explicitly referred to them as "persons".[40] Southern Democrats considered Republicans to be lawless rebels who were provoking disunion by their refusal to accept the Supreme Courtroom'south decision equally the police force of the land. Many northern opponents of slavery offered a legal argument for refusing to recognize the Dred Scott conclusion on the Missouri Compromise as bounden. They argued that the Court'southward conclusion that the federal courts had no jurisdiction to hear the case rendered the residue of the decision obiter dictum—a non binding passing remark rather than an authoritative estimation of the police force. Douglas attacked that position in the Lincoln-Douglas debates:

Mr. Lincoln goes for a warfare upon the Supreme Court of the United States, considering of their judicial determination in the Dred Scott case. I yield obedience to the decisions in that court—to the final determination of the highest judicial tribunal known to our constitution.

In a oral communication at Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln responded that the Republican party was non seeking to defy the Supreme Court, but hoped they could convince information technology to opposite its ruling.[41]

We believe, as much as Judge Douglas, (peradventure more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of government. We retrieve its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, non only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendment of the Constitution equally provided in that instrument itself. More than this would exist revolution. Only we retrieve the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has frequently over-ruled its own decisions, and nosotros shall practice what we can to take it to over-rule this. We offer no resistance to it.

Democrats had refused to accept the courtroom's interpretation of the U.Due south. Constitution every bit permanently binding. During the Andrew Jackson assistants, Taney, so Attorney General, had written:

Whatever may be the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in binding the parties and settling their rights in the particular example before them, I am not prepared to admit that a structure given to the constitution past the Supreme Courtroom in deciding any 1 or more cases fixes of itself irrevokably [sic] and permanently its structure in that particular and binds usa and the Legislative and executive branches of the Full general authorities, forever afterwards to adapt to it and adopt information technology in every other case as the truthful reading of the instrument although all of them may unite in assertive it erroneous.[42]

Frederick Douglass, a prominent blackness abolitionist who considered the conclusion to be unconstitutional and Taney's reasoning contrary to the Founding Fathers' vision, predicted that political disharmonize could non be avoided:

The highest authority has spoken. The voice of the Supreme Court has gone out over the troubled waves of the National Censor.... [But] my hopes were never brighter than now. I have no fright that the National Conscience will exist put to sleep by such an open up, glaring, and scandalous tissue of lies....[43]

Co-ordinate to Jefferson Davis, then a U.Southward. Senator from Mississippi, and future President of the Confederate States of America, the case only "presented the question whether Cuffee[44] should be kept in his normal condition or non . . . [and] whether the Congress of the United States could decide what might or might non be property in a Territory–the case existence that of an officeholder of the army sent into a Territory to perform his public duty, having taken with him his negro slave".[45]

Impact on both parties [edit]

Irene Emerson moved to Massachusetts in 1850 and married Calvin C. Chaffee, a doctor and abolitionist who was elected to Congress on the Know Nothing and Republican tickets. Following the Supreme Courtroom ruling, pro-slavery newspapers attacked Chaffee as a hypocrite. Chaffee protested that Dred Scott belonged to his brother-in-law and that he had zero to do with Scott's enslavement.[27] Still, the Chaffees executed a deed transferring the Scott family to Henry Taylor Blow, the son of Scott's former possessor, Peter Blow. Chaffee'south lawyer suggested the transfer as the most convenient fashion of freeing Scott since Missouri law required manumitters to appear in person earlier the court.[27]

Taylor Blow filed the manumission papers with Gauge Hamilton on May 26, 1857. The emancipation of Dred Scott and his family unit was national news and was celebrated in northern cities. Scott worked as a porter in a hotel in St. Louis, where he was a modest celebrity. His wife took in laundry. Dred Scott died of tuberculosis on Nov vii, 1858. Harriet died on June 17, 1876.[13]

Aftermath [edit]

Economical [edit]

Economist Charles Calomiris and historian Larry Schweikart discovered that uncertainty nearly whether the entire West would suddenly go slave territory or engulfed in combat like "Bleeding Kansas" gripped the markets immediately. The east–west railroads complanate immediately (although north–due south lines were unaffected), causing, in turn, the near-collapse of several large banks and the runs that ensued. What followed the runs has been chosen the Panic of 1857.

The Panic of 1857, dissimilar the Panic of 1837, almost exclusively impacted the Northward, a fact that Calomiris and Schweikart attribute to the South's system of branch banking, as opposed to the North'southward system of unit banking. In the South'south co-operative banking system, information moved reliably among the branch banks and transmission of the panic was small-scale. Northern unit banks, in contrast, were competitors and seldom shared such vital information.[46]

Political [edit]

Southerners, who had grown uncomfortable with the Kansas-Nebraska Human activity, argued that they had a constitutional right to bring slaves into the territories, regardless of any decision past a territorial legislature on the subject. The Dred Scott determination seemed to endorse that view.

Although Taney believed that the conclusion represented a compromise that would be a last settlement of the slavery question by transforming a contested political issue into a thing of settled law, the decision produced the contrary result. It strengthened Northern opposition to slavery, divided the Autonomous Party on sectional lines, encouraged secessionist elements among Southern supporters of slavery to brand bolder demands, and strengthened the Republican Party.

Afterwards references [edit]

In 1859, when defending John Anthony Copeland and Shields Dark-green from the accuse of treason, following their participation in John Brown'due south raid on Harpers Ferry, their chaser, George Sennott, cited the Dred Scott decision in arguing successfully that since they were not citizens according to that Supreme Court ruling, they could not commit treason.[47] The charge of treason was dropped, but they were establish guilty and executed on other charges.

Justice John Marshall Harlan was the lone dissenting vote in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which alleged racial segregation constitutional and created the concept of "separate but equal". In his dissent, Harlan wrote that the majority's opinion would "prove to exist quite every bit pernicious as the conclusion made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott example".[48]

Charles Evans Hughes, writing in 1927 on the Supreme Court's history, described Dred Scott 5. Sandford as a "self-inflicted wound" from which the court would non recover for many years.[49] [50] [51]

In a memo to Justice Robert H. Jackson in 1952, for whom he was clerking, on the subject field of Brownish five. Board of Didactics, the future Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that "Scott 5. Sandford was the effect of Taney's effort to protect slaveholders from legislative interference."[52]

Justice Antonin Scalia made the comparing between Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and Dred Scott in an effort to see Roe v. Wade overturned:

Dred Scott ... rested upon the concept of "noun due process" that the Court praises and employs today. Indeed, Dred Scott was very mayhap the first application of substantive due process in the Supreme Courtroom, the original precedent for... Roe v. Wade.[53]

Scalia noted that the Dred Scott conclusion had been written and championed by Taney and left the justice's reputation irrevocably tarnished. Taney, who was attempting to end the disruptive question of the time to come of slavery, wrote a conclusion that "inflamed the national fence over slavery and deepened the divide that led ultimately to the Civil War".[54]

Principal Justice John Roberts compared Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) to Dred Scott, every bit another example of trying to settle a contentious issue through a ruling that went across the scope of the Constitution.[55]

Legacy [edit]

  • 1977: The Scotts' not bad-grandson, John A. Madison, Jr., an chaser, gave the invocation at the ceremony at the Old Courthouse in St. Louis, a National Celebrated Landmark, for the dedication of a National Celebrated Marker commemorating the Scotts' case tried at that place.[56]
  • 2000: Harriet and Dred Scott's petition papers in their liberty suit were displayed at the chief branch of the St. Louis Public Library, post-obit the discovery of more than than 300 freedom suits in the archives of the U.S. circuit court.[57]
  • 2006: A new historic plaque was erected at the Old Courthouse to honor the agile roles of both Dred and Harriet Scott in their freedom suit and the case'due south significance in U.South. history.[58]
  • 2012: A monument depicting Dred and Harriet Scott was erected at the Onetime Courthouse'south east entrance facing the St. Louis Gateway Curvation.[59]

See also [edit]

  • Anticanon
  • American slave court cases
  • Freedom suit
  • Origins of the American Civil State of war
  • Privileges and Immunities Clause
  • Timeline of the civil rights movement

Notes [edit]

  1. ^ John Sandford's surname was actually "Sanford". A Supreme Court clerk of courtroom misspelled his proper name in 1856 and the error was never corrected.[2]
  2. ^ Legal historian Walter Ehrlich implies that the custody lodge practical only to Dred Scott, while Don Fehrenbacher suggests that it applied to both Dred and Harriet.

References [edit]

Citations [edit]

  1. ^ Daniel A. Farber, A Fatal Loss of Rest: Dred Scott Revisited, UC Berkeley Public Constabulary Research Paper No. 1782963 (2011).
  2. ^ Vishneski (1988), p. 373, notation one.
  3. ^ a b Chemerinsky (2015), p. 722. sfnp fault: no target: CITEREFChemerinsky2015 (help)
  4. ^ a b Nowak & Rotunda (2012), §18.6.
  5. ^ Staff (Oct 14, 2015). "xiii Worst Supreme Court Decisions of All Time". FindLaw . Retrieved June 10, 2021.
  6. ^ Bernard Schwartz (1997). A Book of Legal Lists: The Best and Worst in American Constabulary . Oxford University Printing. p. 70. ISBN978-0-nineteen-802694-5.
  7. ^ Junius P. Rodriguez (2007). Slavery in the Usa: A Social, Political, and Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 1. ISBN9781851095445.
  8. ^ David Konig; et al. (2010). The Dred Scott Case: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Race and Police. Ohio University Press. p. 213. ISBN9780821419120.
  9. ^ Chemerinsky (2015), p. 723. sfnp error: no target: CITEREFChemerinsky2015 (help)
  10. ^ a b c d east f g h i j Chemerinsky (2019), § ix.iii.one, p. 750.
  11. ^ Melvin I. Urofsky, Dred Scott at the Encyclopædia Britannica
  12. ^ Earl M. Maltz, Dred Scott and the Politics of Slavery (2007)
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m "Missouri's Dred Scott Case, 1846–1857". Missouri Digital Heritage: African American History Initiative . Retrieved July fifteen, 2015.
  14. ^ a b c d due east f chiliad Finkelman (2007).
  15. ^ a b c Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Example: Its Significance in American Constabulary and Politics (2001)
  16. ^ a b c d east f g h i j chiliad 50 1000 due north o p q r due south t u v w x y z aa ab ac advertizing ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax Ehrlich, Walter (2007). They Have No Rights: Dred Scott's Struggle for Freedom. Applewood Books.
  17. ^ a b c d e VanderVelde, Lea (2009). Mrs. Dred Scott: A Life on Slavery's Frontier. Oxford University Press. ISBN9780195366563.
  18. ^ 1 Mo. 472, 475 (Mo. 1824).
  19. ^ 4 Mo. 350 (Mo. 1836).
  20. ^ Gardner, Eric (Spring 2007). "'You Have No Business to Whip Me': The Freedom Suits of Polly Wash and Lucy Ann Delaney". African American Review. 41 (1): 40, 47. JSTOR 40033764.
  21. ^ a b c d east f g h i j k fifty m north o p q r s Fehrenbacher, Don Edward (1981). Slavery, Constabulary and Politics: The Dred Scott Case in Historical Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN0-19-502882-1.
  22. ^ a b Lawson, John, ed. (1921). American State Trials. Vol. thirteen. St. Louis: Thomas Law Book Visitor. pp. 237–238.
  23. ^ Finkelman, Paul (December 2006). "Scott v. Sandford: The Courtroom's Most Dreadful Case and How It Changed History". Chicago-Kent Law Review. 82 (one): 25 – via Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Police.
  24. ^ a b c d e f g h i Boman, Dennis One thousand. (2000). "The Dred Scott Case Reconsidered: The Legal and Political Context in Missouri". American Journal of Legal History. 44 (4): 421, 423–424, 426. doi:10.2307/3113785. JSTOR 3113785.
  25. ^ a b "Scott v. Emerson, 15 Mo. 576 (1852)". Caselaw Admission Projection, Harvard Law School . Retrieved April 1, 2022.
  26. ^ a b c Ehrlich, Walter (September 1968). "Was the Dred Scott Case Valid?". The Journal of American History. Organization of American Historians. 55 (ii): 256–265. doi:ten.2307/1899556. JSTOR 1899556.
  27. ^ a b c d Hardy, David T. (2012). "Dred Scott, John San(d)ford, and the Instance for Collusion" (PDF). Northern Kentucky Police Review. 41 (1). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 10, 2015.
  28. ^ Maltz, Earl M. (2007). Dred Scott and the politics of slavery. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. p. 115. ISBN978-0-7006-1502-five.
  29. ^ Faragher, John Mack; et al. (2005). Out of Many: A History of the American People (Revised Press (4th Ed) ed.). Englewood Cliffs, North.J: Prentice Hall. p. 388. ISBN0-13-195130-0.
  30. ^ Baker, Jean H. (2004). James Buchanan: The American Presidents Series: The 15th President, 1857–1861. Macmillan. ISBN978-0-8050-6946-iv.
  31. ^ "James Buchanan: Inaugural Address. U.S. Countdown Addresses. 1989". Bartleby.com. Retrieved July 26, 2012.
  32. ^ a b c d e f Nowak & Rotunda (2012), § xviii.6.
  33. ^ Quoted in function in Chemerinsky (2019), § 9.3.1, p. 750.
  34. ^ Chemerinsky (2019), § 9.3.1, p. 750, quoting Dred Scott, threescore U.S. at 409.
  35. ^ Chemerinsky (2019), § 9.3.1, pp. 750–51.
  36. ^ ( Dred Scott v. Sanford , 60 U.Southward. 149.)
  37. ^ a b c McCloskey (2010), p. 62.
  38. ^ "Dred Scott 5. Sanford (1857) Excerpts From Majority and Dissenting Opinions". Bill of Rights Institute.
  39. ^ "Digital History". www.digitalhistory.uh.edu . Retrieved June 12, 2019.
  40. ^ "Abraham Lincoln's Cooper Union Address". world wide web.abrahamlincolnonline.org.
  41. ^ "Speech at Springfield, June 26, 1857".
  42. ^ Don E. Fehrenbacher (1978/2001), The Dred Scott Example: Its Significance in American Constabulary and Politics, reprint, New York: Oxford, Part iii, "Consequences and Echoes", Chapter xviii, "The Judges Judged", p. 441; unpublished opinion, transcript in Carl B. Swisher Papers, Manuscript Sectionalisation, Library of Congress.
  43. ^ Finkleman, Paul (March 15, 1997). Dred Scott vs. Sandford: A Brief History with Documents – Google Boeken. ISBN9780312128074.
  44. ^ a derogatory term for a blackness person
  45. ^ Address to the U.s. Senate on May 7, 1860, reprinted as Appendix F to Davis, Ascent and Fall of the Confederate Government (1880).
  46. ^ Charles Calomiris and Larry Schweikart, "The Panic of 1857: Origins, Transmission, Containment", Journal of Economic History, LI, December 1990, pp. 807–34.
  47. ^ Lubet, Steven (June 1, 2013). "Execution in Virginia, 1859: The Trials of Green and Copeland". North Carolina Constabulary Review. 91 (5).
  48. ^ Fehrenbacher, p. 580.
  49. ^ Hughes, Charles Evans (1936) [1928]. The Supreme Court of the Us. Columbia University Press. pp. l–51. ISBN978-0-231-08567-0.
  50. ^ "Introduction to the court opinion on the Dred Scott case". U.S. Section of State. Retrieved July 16, 2015.
  51. ^ "Remarks of the Primary Justice". Supreme Courtroom of the United States. March 21, 2003. Retrieved November 22, 2007.
  52. ^ Rehnquist, William. "A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases" Archived 2008-09-21 at the Wayback Machine.
  53. ^ Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). FindLaw.
  54. ^ Carey, Patrick W. (April 2002). "Political Disbelief: Dred Scott, Roger Brooke Taney, and Orestes A. Brownson". The Catholic Historical Review. The Catholic University of America Press. 88 (two): 207–229. doi:10.1353/cat.2002.0072. ISSN 1534-0708. S2CID 153950640.
  55. ^ Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (1992).
  56. ^ Arenson, Adam (2010), "Dred Scott versus the Dred Scott Case", The Dred Scott Case: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Race and Law, Ohio University Printing, p. 36, ISBN978-0821419120
  57. ^ Arenson (2010), p. 38
  58. ^ Arenson (2010), p. 39
  59. ^ Patrick, Robert (Baronial 18, 2015). "St. Louis judges desire sculpture to honor slaves who sought freedom here". stltoday.com . Retrieved September 2, 2018. Attendees get their showtime look after the unveiling of the new Dred and Harriet Scott statue on the grounds of the Old Courthouse in downtown St. Louis on Fri, June 8, 2012.

Works cited [edit]

  • Arenson, Adam (2010). "Dred Scott Versus the Dred Scott Case". In Konig, David Thomas; Finkelman, Paul; Bracey, Christopher Alan (eds.). The Dred Scott Example: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Race and Law. Columbus, OH: Ohio Land University Printing. ISBN978-0821419120.
  • Chemerinsky, Erwin (2019). Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (sixth ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer. ISBN978-1-4548-9574-nine.
  • Ehrlich, Walter (1968). "Was the Dred Scott Case Valid?". The Periodical of American History. 55 (2): 256–265. doi:10.2307/1899556. JSTOR 1899556.
  • Finkelman, Paul (2007). "Scott 5. Sandford: The Courtroom'due south Most Dreadful Instance and How it Changed History" (PDF). Chicago-Kent Police force Review. 82 (iii): 3–48.
  • Hughes, Charles Evans (1936) [1928]. The Supreme Court of the United States. Columbia University Printing. ISBN978-0-231-08567-0.
  • McCloskey, Robert Thousand. (2010). The American Supreme Court. Revised by Sanford Levinson (fifth ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN978-0-226-55686-iv.
  • Nowak, John E.; Rotunda, Ronald D. (2012). Treatise on Ramble Law: Substance and Procedure (5th ed.). Eagan, MN: West Thomson/Reuters. OCLC 798148265.
  • Vishneski, John South. (1988). "What the Court Decided in Dred Scott v. Sandford". American Journal of Legal History. 32 (four): 373–390. doi:10.2307/845743. JSTOR 845743.

Further reading [edit]

  • Dennis-Jonathan Mann & Kai Purnhagen: The Nature of Union Citizenship between Autonomy and Dependency on (Member) Land Citizenship – A Comparative Analysis of the Rottmann Ruling, or: How to Avoid a European Dred Scott Decision?, in: 29:3 Wisconsin International Police Journal (WILJ), (Autumn 2011), pp. 484–533 (PDF).
  • Fehenbacher, Don E., The Dred Scott Instance: Its Significance in American Constabulary and Politics New York: Oxford (1978) [winner of Pulitzer Prize for History].
  • Fehrenbacher, Don E. Slavery, Police, and Politics: The Dred Scott Instance in Historical Perspective (1981) [abridged version of The Dred Scott Case].
  • Konig, David Thomas, Paul Finkelman, and Christopher Alan Bracey, eds. The "Dred Scott" Case: Historical and Gimmicky Perspectives on Race and Police (Ohio University Printing; 2010) 272 pages; essays by scholars on the history of the case and its afterlife in American law and gild.
  • Potter, David 1000. The Impending Crisis, 1848–1861 (1976) pp 267–96.
  • VanderVelde, Lea. Mrs. Dred Scott: A Life on Slavery'due south Frontier (Oxford University Printing, 2009) 480 pp.
  • Swain, Gwenyth (2004). Dred and Harriet Scott: A Family'due south Struggle for Liberty. Saint Paul, MN: Borealis Books. ISBN978-0-87351-482-eight.
  • Tushnet, Mark (2008). I Dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Boston: Beacon Press. pp. 31–44. ISBN978-0-8070-0036-half dozen.
  • Listen to: American Pendulum Two – 🔊 Listen Now: American Pendulum 2

External links [edit]

  • Texts on Wikisource:
    • Dred Scott v. Sandford
    • "Dred Scott Example". New International Encyclopedia. 1905.
    • "Dred Scott Example". Collier'southward New Encyclopedia. 1921.
  • Text of Dred Scott five. Sandford, lx U.South. (19 How.) 393 (1857) is available from:Cornell Findlaw Justia Library of Congress OpenJurist Oyez (oral argument sound)
  • The Dred Scott decision. Opinion of Chief Justice Taney, with an introduction past Dr. J. H. Van Evrie. Also, an appendix, containing an essay on the natural history of the prognathous race of mankind, originally written for the New York Twenty-four hour period-book, by Dr. Due south. A. Cartwright, of New Orleans. New York: Van Evrie, Horton & Co. 1863.
  • Primary documents and bibliography about the Dred Scott case, from the Library of Congress
  • "Dred Scott decision", Encyclopædia Britannica 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 17 December 2006. www.yowebsite.com
  • Gregory J. Wallance, "Dred Scott Determination: The Lawsuit That Started The Ceremonious War", History.net, originally in Civil State of war Times Mag, March/April 2006
  • Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, National Park Service
  • Infography about the Dred Scott Instance
  • The Dred Scott Case Collection, Washington University in St. Louis
  • Study of the Brown University Steering Committee on Slavery and Justice
  • Dred Scott case articles from William Lloyd Garrison's abolitionist paper The Liberator
  • "Supreme Court Landmark Instance Dred Scott 5. Sandford" from C-SPAN's Landmark Cases: Celebrated Supreme Court Decisions
  • Report of the Determination of the Supreme Courtroom of the United states and the Opinions of the Judges Thereof, in the Case of Dred Scott Versus John F.A. Sandford. December Term, 1856 via Google Books

siefertyouded85.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

0 Response to "what led to the dred scott v sandford case"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel