Reference no: EM133233052

Case: Historical Background Dred Scott was a Missouri slave. Sold to Army surgeon John Emerson in Saint Louis around 1833, Scott was taken to Illinois, a free State, and on to the free Wisconsin Territory before returning to Missouri. When Emerson died in 1843, Scott sued Emerson's widow for his free dom in the Missouri supreme court, claiming that his residence in the "free soil" of Illinois made him a free man. After defeat in State courts, Scott brought suit in a local fed eral court. Eleven years after Scott's initial suit, the case came before the U.S. Supreme Court. FRANK LESLIE'S ILLUSTRATED y the mid-1850s, sectional conflict over the extension of slavery into the Western apart. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 destroyed the tenuous balance struck 34 years before between "free States" and "slave States" in the Missouri Compromise. Under the banner of "popular sovereignty," pro- and antislavery factions waged violent con flict for control of what came to be known as "bleeding Kansas" before that territory was admitted to the Union. With Con gress sharply divided, reflecting the divisions in the nation, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of hearing the case of a fugitive slave suing for his freedom. Intended to be the definitive ruling that would settle the contro versy threatening the Union for good, the case instead produced a divisive. decision that pushed the nation one step closer toward the precipice of civil war. Constitutional Issues Did a slave become free upon entering a free State? Could a slave-or a black person-actually be entitled to sue in federal courts? Was the transportation of slaves subject to federal reg ulation? Could the Federal Government deny a citizen the right to property (inter state transportation of slaves/property) without an item of property (a slave) without just compensation? And finally, was the Missouri Compromise a valid and constitutional action of the National Government? Could Con gress prohibit slavery in a territory or delegate that power to a territory's legislature? An 1857 newspaper features a story due process of law? Could covering the Dred Scott decision. Scott and his family are pictured on the cover. be taken from the owner John Marshall, in his time the single most influ ential advocate for strong National Govern- ment, had died in 1835. President Andrew Jackson appointed Roger B. Taney (pro- nounced Tawney). During his tenure as Chief Justice, Taney upheld strong national power, but with some modifications. Taney endorsed what is known as "dual sovereignty," which implies that State and federal governments are "foreign" to each other; each is sovereign in its own right. By 1857, Taney presided over a Court that had expanded to nine justices and was divided-four Northerners and five South- erners, including Taney, sat on the bench. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Arguments For Dred Scott: When a person enters a free State or territory, the free status overrides the previous condition of servitude. Since slavery was forbidden in the free States and territories by federal and State laws, Dred Scott became free when he entered Illinois andFor Sandford: To deprive a person of property (in this case, Dred Scott) without due process or just compensation violated the 5th Amend which states that "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensa tion." Dred Scott was still a slave and no mas ter's property rights could be limited or taken away by a State or federal law. possess (in this case, the powerts limit slavery) By declaring the Missouri Con promise uncon stitutional, Taney not only dereyed one of the delicate compromises that had kept the union together for nearly four decades but also rejected the principle of poplit sovereignty. Popular sovereignty, which hel that territories could decide whether or notto allow slavery for themselves, had been strongly advocated by Stephen Douglas as the solution to the controversies in the federal territories that dominated the 1850s. This disallowance of popular sovereignty contributed to the national disorder over the spread of slavery. The Dred Scott decision Octa The Court decided 7-2 in favor of the slave owner. Every justice submitted an individual opinion justifying his position, with Chief Jus tice they being the most influential. ed to Taney, African Americans, be or free, were not citizens. As a slave, moreover, Scott was property and had no right to bring suit in federal courts. "In regard to the issue of Scott's becoming free when he moved to the free State of Illinois," Taney wrote, "the laws of the State in which the petitioner was currently resident, namely the slave State of Missouri, should apply." se that Decision and Rationale wlaws, aitiate a leans to oad offi the train. unleashed a storm of protest against the Court ind the adminis tration of President Buchasan, which sup ported the decision. The justices' plans to make a definitive ruling that would settle the contro versy over slavery backfired as Republicans charged that "Slave Power" conspiracy a extended into the highest reaches of govern ment. Violent struggles continued in the Kansas and Nebraska territories, where "free soil" and proslavery guerilla bands terrorized each other. A major landmark on the road to the Civil War, the Dred Scott decision was overturned with the adoption of the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution in 1865 and 1868. These amendments ended slavery and established firmly the citizenship of all persons, regardless of race, creed, or previous condition of servi tude. As for Dred Scott, two months after the Supreme Court's decision, Emerson's widow sold Scott and his family to the Blow family, who freed them in May of 1857. ge, to stop ninal viola isiana State me Court of little vessy for a writ and fined, Of far more serious consequence, the Court also struck down the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional, because it deprived property owners (slave owners) of the right to take their property anywhere in the United States, thus "depriving them of life, liberty and property under the 5th Amendment." Any line, or law, that limited the right of slave owners to utilize their property was unconstitutional. Taney then ruled that the Congress could not extend to any territorial governments powers that it did not daround the 1 Protection at. Did th d seating under the rate acco e for whi of equa ruled y ction qual" mend Prentice-Hall, Inc. Questions for Discussion

Question 1. How do you account for (or explain) the Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford?

Question 2. Once Taney ruled that Scott did not have a right to bring a lawsuit, he could have simply dismissed the case. Why did he decide to deal with the issue of slavery in federal territories