Scott v. Emerson
15 Mo. 576 (1852)
Rule of Law:
A slave who resides in a free state or territory and subsequently returns to a slave state is subject to the laws of the slave state, whose courts are not obligated by comity to enforce a 'free' status acquired elsewhere if doing so contradicts the state's public policy.
Facts:
- Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon in the U.S. Army, was the master of Dred Scott.
- From 1834 until May 1836, Dr. Emerson was stationed at Rock Island, a military post in the free state of Illinois, and he held Scott there as a slave.
- From May 1836 until 1838, Dr. Emerson was stationed at Fort Snelling, a military post in the territory north of 36°30' latitude, where slavery was prohibited by the Missouri Compromise, and he held Scott there as a slave.
- In 1838, Dr. Emerson brought Scott back to the slave state of Missouri.
- Following Dr. Emerson's death, his wife, Irone Emerson, became the administratrix of his estate and claimed ownership of Scott.
Procedural Posture:
- Dred Scott sued Irone Emerson in a Missouri trial court to establish his right to freedom.
- At trial, the jury was instructed that if Scott was held in servitude in Illinois and the free territory, they should find in his favor.
- The jury returned a verdict for Dred Scott, declaring him free.
- Emerson filed a motion for a new trial, alleging the court had misdirected the jury, which the trial court denied.
- Emerson, as appellant, sued out a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Missouri to review the trial court's judgment.
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 slave who resided with his master in a free state (Illinois) and a free federal territory (where slavery was prohibited by the Missouri Compromise) become permanently free, such that Missouri must recognize that freedom upon his return?
Opinions:
Majority - Scott, J.
No. A slave's status is determined by the law of the state in which he is currently domiciled, and Missouri law does not recognize freedom acquired by temporary residence in a free jurisdiction. Missouri is not bound by comity to enforce the laws of other states or territories when those laws are contrary to its own public policy and institutions. The court reasoned that each state has the right to determine the extent to which it will respect the laws of other states, and no state is obligated to enforce enactments that are hostile to its own, such as abolitionist laws. Overturning decades of its own precedent, the court stated that 'times now are not as they were' and that Missouri should not countenance the 'dark and fell spirit' of anti-slavery sentiment. The court further argued that enforcing foreign anti-slavery laws would be a 'humiliating spectacle' of confiscating the property of Missouri's own citizens by command of a foreign law.
Dissenting - Gamble, J.
Yes. A master who voluntarily takes a slave to reside in a state where slavery is prohibited thereby emancipates the slave, and this change in status must be recognized by Missouri courts based on established precedent. The dissent argued that the question was 'conclusively settled' by a long series of Missouri Supreme Court decisions, including Winney v. Whitesides and Rachael v. Walker. The principle of stare decisis dictates that these precedents should be followed. The dissent warned against allowing 'temporary public excitements' to influence judicial decisions, stating that legal principles are immutable and should be applied calmly and consistently. The act of a master moving a slave to a free state is a voluntary submission to that state's laws, which has the same effect as a formal deed of emancipation.
Analysis:
This decision marked a dramatic reversal of the 'once free, always free' doctrine that had been Missouri law for decades. It reflects the hardening of judicial attitudes in favor of slavery amidst rising national tensions. By prioritizing Missouri's public policy over the principle of comity and established precedent, the court signaled a new, more aggressive pro-slavery jurisprudence. This state-level decision set the stage for the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Dred Scott v. Sandford, which would elevate these arguments to a national constitutional crisis.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Scott v. Emerson (1852)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"