Dred Scott v. Sandford
19 How. 393 (1857)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Persons of African descent are not citizens of the United States and therefore have no standing to sue in federal court. Furthermore, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 is unconstitutional because Congress lacks the power to prohibit slavery in the territories, as such an act would violate the Fifth Amendment's due process protections for slave owners' property.
Facts:
- Dred Scott, an enslaved man, was owned by Dr. John Emerson, a U.S. Army surgeon residing in Missouri, a slave state.
- In 1834, Dr. Emerson took Scott from Missouri to a military post at Rock Island, Illinois, a free state.
- In 1836, Dr. Emerson moved with Scott from Illinois to a military post at Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin Territory, a free territory where slavery was prohibited by the Missouri Compromise.
- While at Fort Snelling, Scott married Harriet Robinson, another slave, with Dr. Emerson's consent. They had two children, Eliza and Lizzie.
- In 1838, Dr. Emerson returned to Missouri with Scott and his family, where they continued to be held as slaves.
- After Dr. Emerson's death, his wife inherited Scott and his family. John F.A. Sandford, Mrs. Emerson's brother, eventually claimed ownership of them.
Procedural Posture:
- Dred Scott initially brought suit in Missouri state trial court and a jury found in his favor, granting him freedom.
- The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri, which reversed the trial court's decision and held that Scott and his family remained slaves.
- Scott then filed a new suit for his freedom in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri, claiming jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship (Scott as a citizen of Missouri and Sandford as a citizen of New York).
- Sandford filed a plea in abatement, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because Scott, as a person of African descent, was not and could not be a citizen.
- The Circuit Court overruled Sandford's plea but, after a trial on an agreed statement of facts, found in favor of Sandford on the merits.
- Scott then brought a writ of error to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person of African descent, whose ancestors were imported into the United States and sold as slaves, qualify as a 'citizen of a State' within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, thereby entitling them to sue in federal court?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Taney
No. A person of African descent whose ancestors were brought to the United States and sold as slaves is not a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution and cannot sue in federal court. The Constitution was created by and for the white race, which at the time of its framing regarded persons of African descent as an inferior class of beings with no rights a white man was bound to respect. At the nation's founding, they were not considered part of the 'sovereign people' who created the Constitution, and thus neither they nor their descendants, whether free or enslaved, can be citizens. Even if a state confers state citizenship, it does not grant U.S. citizenship. Furthermore, the Missouri Compromise is void because Congress has no constitutional power to prohibit slavery in federal territories. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects a citizen's property rights, and slaves are a form of property; therefore, a congressional act depriving a citizen of his property (a slave) merely for entering a territory is unconstitutional.
Dissenting - Justice McLean
Yes. A person of African descent can be a citizen of the United States and has the right to sue in federal court. Citizenship is determined by being a freeman with a domicil in a state, not by race or the right to vote. The majority's conclusion that no person of African descent can be a citizen is historically inaccurate, as free Black men were citizens and voters in several states when the Constitution was adopted. Slavery is a state institution, limited by territorial law, and has no legal authority in a free state or territory. When Scott was taken by his master to Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was prohibited by the Illinois Constitution and the Missouri Compromise Act, respectively, he became free. This freedom, once acquired, could not be lost upon his return to Missouri, as was the settled law of Missouri itself for decades.
Dissenting - Justice Curtis
Yes. Free persons of color born within a state are citizens of that state and, by extension, citizens of the United States who are entitled to sue in federal court. At the time of the Constitution's ratification, free native-born African Americans were citizens in several states and even had the right to vote. The Constitution did not create a separate federal citizenship exclusive of state citizenship for these purposes. Congress's power under the Territory Clause to 'make all needful rules and regulations' is a plenary power to govern, which includes the power to prohibit slavery, as it had done in the Missouri Compromise. When a master voluntarily takes a slave into a territory where slavery is legally prohibited, the slave is emancipated. This vested right to freedom is permanent and cannot be divested by a subsequent return to a slave state.
Analysis:
The Dred Scott decision is widely regarded as one of the most disastrous in Supreme Court history and a major catalyst for the Civil War. By declaring the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, the Court eliminated any possibility of a political compromise over slavery in the territories, thereby fueling the platform of the anti-slavery Republican Party. The ruling's broad declaration that African Americans could never be citizens stripped them of any potential legal or constitutional protection and entrenched the idea of racial hierarchy in constitutional law. This decision was ultimately overturned by the Civil War and the subsequent ratification of the 13th and 14th Amendments, which abolished slavery and established birthright citizenship.
Unlock the full brief for Dred Scott v. Sandford