Dred Scott

views updated

Dred Scott

Born 1795?
Southampton County, Virginia
Died September 17, 1858
St. Louis, Missouri

Slave who sued unsuccessfully
to obtain his freedom

The U.S. Supreme Court's controversial
ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford increased
the hostility between North and South that led
to the Civil War

Dred Scott was a slave who challenged the institution of slavery in court. He filed a lawsuit arguing that he should be free since his master had taken him to live in free territory for several years. The historic case, known as Dred Scott v. Sandford, made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857. At this time, the Northern and Southern halves of the country were involved in a fierce debate about slavery and the extent to which the government should be allowed to control it.

The Supreme Court ruled that black Americans did not have the rights of citizens, so Scott was not entitled to file his lawsuit. The sweeping ruling also said that the U.S. government could not limit the spread of slavery to new states and territories—or even prevent people from holding slaves in free states—because the Constitution does not allow the government to deprive citizens of their property. The court's decision upset many people in the North, but thrilled many people in the South. It also increased the hostile (unfriendly) feelings between the two sections of the country that led to the Civil War a few years later.

Born a slave

The man who became famous in court as Dred Scott was born in Virginia around 1795. He was originally called Sam, but he changed his name sometime before he filed his historic lawsuit. Scott never knew the exact date of his birth because he was born a slave.

Black people were taken from Africa and brought to North America to serve as slaves for white people beginning in the 1600s. The basic belief behind slavery was that black people were inferior to whites. Under slavery, white slaveholders treated black people as property, forced them to perform hard labor, and controlled every aspect of their lives. States in the Northern half of the United States began outlawing slavery in the late 1700s. But slavery continued to exist in the Southern half of the country because it played an important role in the South's economy and culture.

Most slave owners tried to prevent their slaves from learning much about themselves or the world around them. They believed that educated slaves would be more likely to become dissatisfied with their lives. For this reason, Scott received no information about his birth. He also never learned to read and write. Years later, he used a symbol to represent his name whenever he was required to sign legal documents.

As a young man, Scott belonged to Peter Blow, who owned a farm in Virginia. Blow eventually decided that the land was not fertile enough to farm successfully. In 1819, he moved west along with his family and their six slaves, including Scott. They settled in the busy frontier town of St. Louis, Missouri, where Blow opened a boarding house called the Jefferson Hotel. Since he did not need Scott's help in the boarding house, Blow hired his slave out as a deckhand on river-boats that went up and down the Mississippi River. Slave owners often rented their extra slaves to other people and received payment for the work they did.

Sold and taken to free territory

In 1832, Peter Blow became ill and was forced to give up his hotel business. He ended up selling his slaves in order to pay off his debts. He sold Scott to Dr. John Emerson for $500. It is not clear how Scott felt about being sold. One story says that he was so upset that he ran away and hid in a swamp. But another story says that he asked to be sold because Blow had whipped him. Shortly after buying Scott, Emerson received a commission as a surgeon in the U.S. Army. He went to live at Fort Armstrong in Illinois in 1833 and took Scott with him. Illinois was a free state, meaning that it did not allow slavery. But at that time, the laws were unclear about what happened when a master brought a slave into free territory. Most people generally agreed that slaveowners could travel into free states with their slaves and remain there for short periods of time. If slaveowners wanted to settle in a free state permanently, however, they might have to free their slaves.

In 1836, Emerson was transferred to Fort Snelling. This fort was located on the Mississippi River, near what would later become St. Paul, Minnesota. At that time it was part of Wisconsin Territory, which did not allow slavery. Emerson took Scott with him to Fort Snelling. During this time, Emerson also arranged to purchase a female slave named Harriet Robinson. Scott and Robinson became romantically involved and considered themselves married, although slaves were not legally permitted to marry. They eventually had four children, although only their daughters Eliza and Lizzie survived to adulthood.

In 1837, Emerson moved back to St. Louis, but Dred and Harriet Scott remained behind. The doctor eventually got married and moved to Fort Jesup in Louisiana. He then sent for his servants. When the Scotts arrived in Louisiana, they again lived in a slave state. But later that year Emerson returned to Fort Snelling with his slaves. In 1840, they returned to St. Louis. Dr. Emerson died in December 1843. Some slaveowners put provisions in their wills that freed their slaves upon their death. Instead, Dr. Emerson's will said that ownership of Scott and his family would pass to his widow, Irene Emerson.

Sues to obtain freedom

Shortly after the death of his master, Scott tried to purchase freedom for himself and his wife. But Mrs. Emerson refused to set them free. On April 6, 1846, Scott took the unusual step of filing a lawsuit against the widow. The suit claimed that he should be given his freedom because he had spent long periods of time with Dr. Emerson in areas of the country where slavery was banned. Scott knew that slaves had won their freedom in similar cases before. The courts had ruled that masters who took their slaves to live in free territory for a certain period of time must set them free. Scott just had to prove in court that he had lived in free territory and that the Emersons treated him as a slave.

After several delays, a Missouri circuit court judge ruled in Scott's favor on January 12, 1850. But the Emerson family appealed the ruling to the state supreme court. In 1852, that court reversed the earlier decision and found in favor of the Emersons. Shortly afterward, Mrs. Emerson sold Scott and his family to her brother, John F. A. Sanford. Sanford lived in New York but often traveled to St. Louis on business. Scott brought a new lawsuit against Sanford. Since the suit now involved people from two different states, Scott was entitled to take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Appears before the Supreme Court

The case known as Dred Scott v. Sandford finally appeared before the Supreme Court in February 1856. (The trial name offically, though erroneously, spelled Sanford's name with two d's.) By this time, the entire nation had become involved in an intense debate over slavery. Growing numbers of Northerners believed that slavery was wrong. Some people wanted to outlaw it, while others just wanted to prevent it from spreading beyond the Southern states where it was already allowed. But slavery played a big role in the Southern economy and culture. As a result, many Southerners felt threatened by Northern efforts to contain slavery. They believed that each state should decide for itself whether to allow the practice. They did not want the national government to pass laws that would interfere with their traditional way of life. This dispute grew even more heated as the United States expanded westward. Both sides wanted to spread their political ideas into the new territories and states.

Scott's case concerned several issues that both abolitionists (people who wanted to end slavery) and slavery supporters considered important. For example, it would decide whether slaves who were brought to free states had a right to freedom. Since Scott brought the suit as a citizen of Missouri, it would also decide whether black Americans could be considered citizens. Finally, it would decide whether the federal government had the authority to limit the spread of slavery to new states. Basically, the impact of the case extended far beyond Dred Scott and his family. The entire institution of slavery was placed on trial.

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (1777–1864) announced the court's decision on March 6, 1857. Led by five justices who were Southerners, a majority of the nine-person court ruled against Scott. According to the Supreme Court, no black man—whether he was free or a slave—could ever become a U.S. citizen. Since only citizens were allowed to sue in federal court, Taney explained that Scott had no legal right to file his lawsuit in the first place. This ruling alone would have shocked and angered abolitionists all across the North. But Taney also said that the federal government did not have the right to outlaw slavery in any U.S. territories. He claimed that laws banning slavery were unconstitutional (went against the principles outlined in the U.S. Constitution) because they deprived slaveholders of property. He also stated that slaveholders could legally transport their slaves anywhere in the country since slaves were considered property.

Ruling increases hostility between North and South

Antislavery organizations immediately spoke out against the verdict. They were upset that the Supreme Court had opened the door to slavery anywhere in the country. Some Northerners saw the court's decision as proof of a Southern conspiracy to spread the institution of slavery into free states as well as the disputed western territories. After all, the ruling theoretically made it possible for slaveholders to move permanently into a free state without ever releasing their slaves from captivity. Many people worried that the Northern states would be powerless to prevent slavery from being practiced within their borders.

On the other hand, many Southerners were thrilled with the Supreme Court's decision. Northerners had been trying to force them to make major changes to their economy and social system for years. But with the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court had supported the South's view of the slavery issue. It had firmly rejected the efforts of abolitionists and black Americans to limit the spread of slavery and gain equal rights for people of all colors. Over the next few years, Northern abolitionists used the Dred Scott decision as evidence that slavery and freedom could not exist together in the United States. Sure enough, the North and South went to war over the issue in 1861.

As reaction to the court's decision swept through the country, the slave Dred Scott—whose lawsuit had sparked the whole controversy—faded from view. In 1858, he and his wife were purchased by Taylor Blow, a member of the family that had owned Scott many years earlier. Blow granted Scott his freedom in May of that year. Sadly, Scott did not have much time to enjoy his hard-won freedom. He died on September 17, 1858, in St. Louis.