Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

The Legal Argument

Scott's legal argument was that his owner had freely taken him to reside for several years in a state and a territory where slavery was illegal, thus making him free. When the case finally came to trial in Missouri, a jury found in Scott's favor, declaring him and his family (by then increased by the arrival of a second daughter) free. Emerson, who in the meantime had moved to Massachusetts, appealed the verdict to the Missouri Supreme Court with her brother, John Sanford (misspelled as Sandford in court records), acting as executor of John Emerson's estate on her behalf. In 1852, the state's highest court reversed the earlier decision based on the fact that Scott was a resident of a slave state and had not attempted to gain his freedom while resident in a free state. Scott appealed the new verdict to the federal courts where he again lost, eventually appealing this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, a native of Virginia, delivered the Dred Scott decision on behalf of the court on March 6, 1857. There were three major issues in the case: Was Scott a citizen entitled to sue in federal court? Was residence on free [Page 739]soil a valid claim to freedom? Was the Missouri Compromise constitutional? Of the nine justices, seven were Democrats and two were Republicans, and each justice rendered his own opinion. Regarding the first question, Taney found that Scott was not a citizen and thus not entitled to sue in federal court, because people of African descent were never intended to be citizens. Three justices agreed, while two dissented. With this finding the case should have been over, since Scott was not eligible to sue in federal court, but the justices went on to determine the merits of the case anyway. Taney found that Scott should not be free because he resided in Missouri at the time of the suit and Missouri allowed slavery. Six justices agreed with this position; three dissented. By a similar majority of 6–3, the court also found that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because slaves were considered property and the Fifth Amendment prohibited Congress from depriving people of their property without due process. In part, the Fifth Amendment reads: “No person shall be … deprived of property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Because the majority of justices considered slaves to be property, Scott could not be freed against the wishes of his owner.

...