Dred Scott v. Sandford: Encyclopedia II - Dred Scott v. Sandford - The case

Dred Scott v. Sandford - The case

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Missouri court history

The first case Scott brought was lost on a technicality; Scott could not prove to the court that Emerson indeed owned him and his family. A judge ordered a second trial in December 1847; Emerson appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, which sided with Scott in June 1848. A new trial did not begin until January 1850, and the jury sided with Scott and his family. Emerson appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court.

Irene Emerson turned the responsibility of the case over to her brother, John F. A. Sanford of New York, who acted on her behalf. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, holding that Scott was still a slave.

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Federal court history

Scott was forced to get new lawyers due to the death of his previous one, then filed suit in Federal Circuit Court. This case was brought against John Sanford, who defended the suit because of the monetary interest; since the beginning of the very first trials, Scott and his family, in the custody of the St. Louis County Sheriff, had been rented out and the not inconsiderable proceeds were held in escrow for the ultimate winner of the case.

Scott at this time received support from the family of his first owner, John Blow. Charles Edmund LaBeaume, a brother-in-law of Peter Blow, was in fact renting the Scotts, and helped Scott sue for his freedom in federal court.

Scott sued Sanford in US Circuit Court for battery and wrongful imprisonment, and asked for nine thousand dollars in damages. The point of the trial was less the case itself, than an attempt to get the court to recognize Scott's freedom. Sanford, who was controlling Scott, would have been committing wrongful imprisonment if Scott were indeed free, which is why the case was brought against Sanford, rather than Scott's actual owner, Irene Emerson.

Federal district judge Robert W. Wells first had to determine whether he had jurisdiction to hear the case. Scott argued "in diversity", an aspect of federal jurisdiction that allows citizens of different states to sue each other in federal court in some circumstances. Scott claimed that he was a citizen of Missouri and the defendant was a citizen of New York. Sanford disagreed in a "plea of abatement", claiming that Scott, because he was black, could not be a citizen of Missouri and that the federal court had no jurisdiction.

Wells rejected the plea of abatement, accepting that, even if Scott did not have full legal or political rights, he had the ability to bring suit in federal court. The case thus went to trial.

Sanford admitted he had "gently laid his hands upon" Scott and his family, thus admitting to the accusations brought against him, but claimed he had the ability to do so because Scott was legally his property. The case went to trial in May 1854, with Judge Wells ordering the jury to determine Scott's status by Missouri law; Scott's status as a slave having already been decided by the Missouri Supreme Court, and the Scotts never having availed themselves of their prior ability to declare themselves free in Illinois, Sanford won the case.

Dred Scott v. Sandford - The Supreme Court case

Though the Blows could no longer afford to support Scott in a legal battle in front of the Supreme Court, Montgomery Blair, a Washington-area lawyer with strong ties to Missouri, took the case for free. Sanford retained US Senator Henry S. Geyer of Missouri and Maryland politician Reverdy Johnson. Blair received little support from the anti-slavery movement, indicating few expected the eventual outcome of the case.

Scott appealed to the Supreme Court in December 1854, arguing that Judge Wells erred in charging the jury that Scott was not entitled to freedom. The Supreme Court held the case for the December 1855 term and heard arguments in February 1856.

The Court gave four days to the parties to hear oral argument in the case — not that unusual an event in the nineteenth century, during which the Supreme Court often heard arguments lasting one or two days. The advocates focused on the questions whether blacks could be citizens of the United States, whether Congress could outlaw slavery in the territories, and whether the Missouri Compromise was constitutional. The court in May postponed a decision for a year, scheduling re-argument on two questions:

1. Had the Circuit Court of the United States jurisdiction to hear and determine the case between these parties? and
2. If it had jurisdiction, was the judgment it has given erroneous?

One year later, in December 1856, the court heard argument on these issues and the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. The case was now starting to gain public attention, and the constitutional lawyer George T. Curtis, brother of Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis, joined in the argument on Scott's side.

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Correspondence with President Buchanan

After the November vote, President-elect Buchanan wrote to his friend, Supreme Court Justice John Catron, asking whether the case would be decided before his inauguration in March. Buchanan hoped the decision would quell unrest in the country over the slavery issue by issuing a decision that put the future of slavery beyond the realm of political debate.

Buchanan later pressured Justice Grier, a Northerner, to join the Southern majority to prevent the appearance that the decision was made along sectional lines. By present-day standards, any such correspondence would be considered improper ex parte contact with a court; even under the more lenient standards of that century, political pressure applied on a member of a sitting court would have been seen as improper.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "The case", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki