Dred Scott Vs. Sanford: Supreme Court Case

Daniel Clouson

Mr. Nelson

American Government

April 1, 2016

Dred Scott v. Sanford

Long ago, when slavery was about, a man named Dred Scott wanted to be a free man, but since he was black slave he could not get any freedom. The supreme court decision in Dred Scott v.s Sanford is wrong. It has been wrong for over many years and slavery has stopped when the 13th amendment came about. The Dred Scott decision was one of the most tragic cases. To fully understand the opinion of the court, it is imperative to know the background of Scott v. Sandford. "Dred Scott v. Sandford." 60 U.S 393. Supreme Court of the United States. 1957. Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Apr 13, 2016

Dred Scott was of African descent and born in America.

Scott openly admitted he was born a slave and of African descent, but he also argued that once his owner took him and his family to a free state and territory to reside, his family became free from slavery.

As Chief Justice Taney said in the opinion of the court, this case brought two major questions to the Supreme Court. The circuit court of the United States jurisdiction to hear and determine the case between these parties. It had jurisdiction as the judgment. (Scott v. Sandford 1857). Scott’s trail was nothing short of controversial, and though several concurring opinions and two dissents were written, the court came to a 7-2 verdict in favor of Sanford. Just before the suit was filed, Dr. Emerson sold Dred Scott, Harriet, and their two children to John Sandford. Sandford, considering the Scott family his slaves, "laid hands on them and imprisoned them" many times (Scott v. Sandford 1857). These actions would be considered legal if Harriet, Lizzie, Eliza, and Dred Scott were his slaves. Dred Scott sought to challenge this. Due to the Missouri Compromise, Illinois and the territory where Dr. Emerson had taken Dred Scott and purchased Harriet, were free (Independence Hall Association 2013). Dred Scott sued his owner, John Sandford, for assaulting his family including himself. Scott openly admitted he was born a slave and of African descent, but he also argued that once his owner took

Sandford 1875). In Taney's opinion, Africans were not part of the "sovereign people" who crafted the Constitution (Independence Hall Association 2013). Taney believed, "it is not the province of the court to decide the justice or injustice… of these laws… The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject. According to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted" (Scott v. Sandford 1875) and his interpretation was that the constitution did not recognize Africans as citizens under any circumstances. Because Taney was stating that Scott did not have citizenship due to his African heritage, he did not have a right to sue in a United States court of any kind. Therefore, the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction over this case (Pearson Education Inc. 2008). Taney took his ruling one step further and decided that since slaves were considered property, they were protected under the Fifth Amendment. Property rights cannot be denied without due process (Independence Hall Association 2013). Taney argued that it was therefore unconstitutional for any state to make a law taking away another person's property, in this case their slaves. Additionally, the power of deciding who is and who is not a citizen is a power that should be exclusively left to the