DRED SCOTT VS. SANFORD 1857 by Michaela Jones

Michaela Jones

United States History 1301 Research Paper

December 7, 2017

Slavery is founded in the selfishness of a man’s nature – opposition to it is his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks and throes and convulsions must ceaselessly follow. –Abraham Lincoln. Dred Scott, a slave from Virginia sued his master for keeping him and his family as slaves in a free state. On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that slaves were not considered citizens, so they did not have the right to sue or have the law on their side (Library of Congress, 2017).[1] During this time, it is understandable on why the supreme court agreed with this decision[G1] . Consequently, the decision was one of the major factors that led America to the Civil War.[G2]

Dred Scott was born in 1795 in Southampton County, Virginia by the name of Sam to his master Peter Blow. Blow and his slaves moved to Alabama and then St. Louis, Missouri in 1830. In 1832 Blow died and Scott was sold to an Army surgeon, Dr. John Emerson. From December 1, 1833 to May 4, 1836, Dr. Emerson served as the post physician at Fort Armstrong, Illinois and carried Scott along with him. Although in Illinois slavery was prohibited, Scott remained a slave (Urofsky, 2017).[2] Dr. Emerson carried Scott with him through numerous Northwest Territories which were considered anti-slavery states (Wallance, 2006).[3] In 1836, Dr. Emerson allowed Scott to marry a slave, Harriet Robinson, and her ownership was then transferred to Dr. Emerson. Dr. Emerson later got transferred to Louisiana where he met and married Eliza Irene Sandford[G3] . Later, Dr. Emerson sent for his slaves. The Scotts began their journey traveling down the Mississippi River through many places that prohibited slavery; forbidden by The Missouri Compromise of 1820 to reach Louisiana where they were going to meet Emerson in late April. In December of 1843, Dr. Emerson abruptly died leaving his estate including his slaves to his widow, Irene Sanford. The Scotts worked for three years as hired slaves, giving all their earnings to Irene. Scott offered numerous times to buy himself from her only to be rejected persistently. In April of 1846, Scott began legal proceedings that would change the course of America forever[G4] (Urofsky, 2017).[4]

Dred Scott began with a small court case of Emerson Vs Scott in the St. Louis County Circuit Court that lasted from April 6, 1846 to January 12, 1859, which he lost the first trial but won the second. However, Irene appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court and they overturned the previous court’s decision (Vianney, 2017)[5]. After a decade of fighting John Sanford, Irene Emerson’s brother claimed all the slaves to be his own, so Scott began to sue him instead of Irene. On May 15, 1854, Scott's case goes to trial in the Supreme Court in favor of John Sanford and finally on February 11, 1856 the first argument is stated before the Supreme court. In addition, two months later in Lawrence, Kansas, John Brown[G5] a radical abolitionist, murders five proslavery men in the Pottawatomie Massacre and then Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts is beaten half to death by Preston Brooks with a cane because of Sumner’s anti-slavery remarks. Currently, slavery is becoming a big problem between the North and the South[G6] , the division between the nation was becoming more evident. Scott began to gain so much recognition from the case that created a shift in the nation. On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that, “In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument...They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; 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."(Taney, 1857)[6] Roger B. Taney ruled that slaves could not sue in the supreme court because they were not considered citizens, which repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Supreme Court ruled the document to be unconstitutional. At that moment the nation was greatly divided, slaveholders in the South took Scott's lost as a win for their way of life, but the abolitionist in the North were incredibly outraged. [G7] During the trial and even after the trial, Scott’s legal fees were paid by the sons of his original owner, Peter Blow. Even though the Scotts did not get their freedom through the courts, Irene accepted $750 dollars for their release. Irene later re-married, Dr. Calvin Chaffee who was an abolitionist Massachusetts Congressman and he arranged for the transfer of the Scott's ownership. Unfortunately, Dred Scott did not have much time to enjoy his freedom because he died nine months later, on September 17, 1858. However, Harriet Scott raised their four children until her death on June 17, 1876 (Wallance, 2006)[7].[G8] [G9]

Although the infamous Dred Scott case was over, this case created a wildfire for abolitionist and the soon to be confederacy. This case is one of the leading causes of the Civil War, it became a landmark that showed where the U.S. government stood on the topic of slavery (Richmond Enquirer, 1857).[8] The effects began to show with the Bleeding Kansas that lasted from 1854 to 1859. Bleeding Kansas was a mini Civil War that was fought between proslavery and anti-slavery crusaders for the open territory of Kansas, which was under popular sovereignty. Over 200 people died during Bleeding Kansas, but resulted in Kansas coming in as a free state (Britannica, 1998)[9]. To add more fuel to the fire, John Brown, a radical abolitionist attempted a raid on an arsenal in Harper’s Ferry, West Virginia to arm slaves with weapons to kill as many slave owners as possible. Consequently, all of John Brown’s followers were killed including his two sons, but Brown was captured by Robert E. Lee and later tried and hung on December 2, 1859. Currently, Abraham Lincoln, an up and rising lawyer from Illinois runs against Stephen Douglass who was a proslavery advocate for the senate seat. In 1858, Lincoln and Douglass become well known for their debates (Dr. May,2017)[10]. Douglass brings up Lincoln’s moral code of thinking slavery was wrong because Lincoln believed that the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision was wrongly decided, however Lincoln was never an abolitionist. Lincoln lost to Douglass against the senate seat, but in 1860 Lincoln faces Douglass again but in a presidential election and wins. On December 20, 1860, the South was officially fed up with the fact they had an anti-slavery president that was putting their ways of life in danger, so they succeeded from the United States, starting with South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and lastly, Texas (Dr. May 2017)[11]. Consequently, the Civil War began April 12, 1861 and was one of the deadliest wars calculated for decades until World War 2 in 1939 (White, 2010)[12]

The Dred Scott decision was wrong for the temporary, but I believe if the decision had gone any differently, African Americans would still be bound by slavery and their codes. Taney intended for his decision to be a chain for the common negro, but, he led America to a war that gave African Americans’ freedom to live at peace with themselves and many others. The South tried to keep them chained but they fought long and hard to make their dreams of freedom become a reality.

Bibliography

"Primary Documents in American History." Dred Scott v. Sandford: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress). Accessed December 10, 2017. https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/DredScott.html.

Wallance, Gregory J. "Dred Scott." HistoryNet. 2006. Accessed December 09, 2017. http://www.historynet.com/dred-scott.

Urofsky, Melvin I. "Dred Scott." Encyclopedia Britannica. August 08, 2017. Accessed December 09, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Dred-Scott.

Taney, Roger B. ""No rights which the white man was bound to respect."." “No rights which the white man was bound to respect.”. Accessed December 10, 2017. http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/03/no-rights-which-white-man-was-bound-to.html.

Lab, Digital Scholarship. "The History Engine." History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes. March 10, 1857. Accessed December 10, 2017. https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/2611.

The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "Bleeding Kansas." Encyclopædia Britannica. July 20, 1998. Accessed December 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/event/Bleeding-Kansas-United-States-history.

White, Matthew. "Worst American This or That." Twentieth Century Atlas - Casualty Statistics - United States. December 2010. Accessed December 10, 2017. http://necrometrics.com/warsusa.htm.

[1] Library of Congress, 2017[2] Melvin I. Urofsky,[3] Gregory J. Wallance, 2006[4] Melvin I. Urofsky, 2017[5] Vianney, 2017[6] Roger B. Taney, 1857[7] Gregory J. Wallance, 2006[8] Richmond Enquirer, 1857[9] Editors at Britannica, 1998[10] Dr. Meredith May, 2017[11] Dr. Meredith May, 2017[12] Matthew White, 2010

]]>