Dred Scott v Sandford (1857)
The Louisiana Purchase in the United States brought a question to the political world: would slavery in the new states be legal or illegal? Congress passed the Missouri Compromise in response to this, which prohibited slavery above a set latitude line. As for the people involved, Dred Scott was born a slave and was eventually bought by John Emerson who took Scott to Illinois and then modern-day Minnesota. Emerson was called for army duty in Missouri, so he left Scott and Scott’s wife and put them up for paid service. This meant Scott could use the “once free, always free” doctrine because he was now in a free state (anti-slavery state). Scott ended up suing Emerson’s widow–since Emerson died in 1843–however the case ownership transferred from the widow to her brother, John Sandford.
Breakdown Verdict.
A 7-2 verdict in favor of Sandford ruled no person of African descent could be considered a federal citizen, free or enslaved . Led by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Supreme Court additionally deemed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional; it went against the Fifth Amendment (Guaranteed life, liberty, and property) since slaves were considered property. Taney specifically cited the Due Process clause, stating that outlawing slavery in an area was unconstitutional because it “deprived slaveowners of their property without due process of law”.
Result Going Forward.
Dred Scott v Sandford intensified tensions between free states and slave states and moved the United States into the proximity of the Civil War. The Supreme Court lost a large amount of trust from the public due to the nature of the ruling. In fact, president James Buchanan tampered with due process by sending letters to Supreme Court Justices and pressuring them to reach a quick ruling. Dred Scott v Sandford brings out an unfortunate time in American history, where people were considered property based on the color of their skin.
Do you agree with the verdict?
100%
0%