Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

Dred Scott v. Sanford was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1857 that held that African Americans in the United States could not and were not considered citizens under the U.S. Constitution. The case itself featured an African American slave from Missouri who, having been taken to the free state of Illinois by his owner, would sue his owner for the right to remain in Illinois as a free man. Citing Illinois’ declaration that slavery was illegal, Scott attempted to sue for his freedom. Appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, it was eventually argued and decided that Scott had no legal standing to sue in the United States, and that he was forever doomed to be a slave. The decision was significant for its implications regarding the growing tensions between the North and South, with the former viewing the case an example of Southern tyranny and the latter viewing it as an affirmation of property rights. The case would prove to be one of the most decisive and polarizing decisions in American jurisprudence and would eventually be considered to be one of the catalysts for the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861.

When Dred Scott was taken from Missouri to Illinois on the behest of his owner, the question immediately arose as to whether slaves, as property of United States citizens, could become free merely upon entering a region in which slavery was prohibited. The death of John Emerson, Scott’s owner, in 1843 led Scott to sue Emerson’s widow for freedom, declaring that he achieved full and legal freedom upon his entrance into a state where slavery itself was illegal. Reasoning that there could be no way a slave could remain a slave in a state in which slavery was not allowed, it seemed that Scott had a fair chance at victory. Indeed, Oliver (2007) sums up that Scott’s argument was “that his master's temporary domicile in a jurisdiction forbidding slavery had liberated him” (p. 13). “The United States Supreme Court under Taney, however, would rule that not only did southern property rights still hold true in free states, but also that African Americans as a whole had no right to sue in federal court.

In terms of impact, the Dred Scott decision disregarded the ability of African Americans to seek legal recourse in American courts. Moreover, the Court would hold that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional, arguing that the state cannot deprive slave owners of their property without due compensation. By extension, the state cannot issue any blanket decrees forbidding the spread and localization of slavery (which the Missouri Compromise had done), thereby destroying the balance of power the Northern and Southern states had established decades past. As “Taney held that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in federal territories”, Scott must then remain a slave (Huebner, 2010, p. 17). This decision would have severe repercussions on the Union as a whole and would ultimately help lead to the outbreak of the American Civil War within just a few years. With regards to the impact it had on Americans, the Dred Scott decision unleashed an incredible amount of anger and fury against the court. The Supreme Court had attempted to settle the issue of slavery once and for all and succeeded only in further polarizing the population on the matter of property rights. Neither the South nor the North viewed the case as satisfactory in ending the debate, and the increase in tensions would help lead to the Civil War in 1861.

The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was a landmark Supreme Court case that declared that African Americans in the United States had no legal standing to sue in federal courts. With that decision in mind, the Court also held that the state could not deprive slave owners of their property. All in all, the Scott decision would anger people at both ends of the political spectrum and contribute to an increasingly polarized population, which would eventually culminate in the Civil War.

References

Huebner, T. S. (2010). Roger B. Taney and the slavery issue: Looking beyond--and before--Dred Scott. Journal of American History, 97(1), 17-38.

Oliver, W. M. (2007). Dred Scott and the political question doctrine.Widener Law Journal, 17(1), 13-28.