Dred Scott Vs. Sanford: The Supreme Court Case

According to many legal scholars, Dred Scott v. Sanford is the Supreme Court case that produced the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It’s no wonder that the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution later overturned this case’s decision ("Dred Scott v. Sanford."). This whole situation began in 1846, when a slave named Dred Scott and his wife sued for their freedom. What followed was an 11 year struggle that resulted in a very well-known decision that was disliked by many people. The Supreme Court not only ruled that Americans of African descent weren’t citizens, but that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional as well. This Supreme Court case took place when tensions were high about the topic of slavery, and some

people even believe that this court case played a part in the cause of the Civil War (McBride). A common opinion is that “a badly divided nation was further fragmented by [this] decision” (Magruder 800). Dred Scott v. Sanford was one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court ever made, and although the judges had good intentions, their decisions were disliked by many and morally wrong.
A man named Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia around 1799 ("Landmark Cases.”). Later, in 1833, a man named Dr. John Emerson purchased Dred Scott to work for him. Dr. Emerson was a surgeon with the United States Army, and moved with Scott to a base in the Wisconsin Territory (McBride). Slavery was banned here in accordance with the Missouri Compromise. Scott, his new wife Harriet, their young children, and Emerson all moved to Louisiana in 1840. After this, they all moved again, but this time to St. Louis, Missouri (McBride). It has also been said that between the years of 1833 and 1840, Scott and Emerson had also lived together in Illinois and Minnesota, which were both non-slave states ("Landmark Cases.”). Dred Scott supposedly married Harriet in Minnesota, but records on these sorts of activities are hard to come by.
In 1843, Dr. Emerson died and left his slaves, the Scott family, to his wife. The Scott family attempted to buy their freedom in 1846 from this woman, whose name was Eliza Irene Stanford. After refusing to let the Scott family free, Dred Scott sued Stanford in a Missouri State Court. His argument was that his family was free because they had all lived in a territory where slavery was banned. A few years later, in 1850, the Missouri State Court declared Scott and his family free. However, during this time, Scott’s wages were being withheld as his masters waited to see the results of the case. Also during this time, Aliza Stanford had married and left her brother, John Stanford, in charge of her affairs (McBride). John Stanford refused to pay back all the wages that had been withheld from Scott, so he appealed the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court. This court ruled in favor of Stanford.
This was not the end, however.

Scott then filed another lawsuit “in a federal circuit court claiming damages against Sanford’s brother, John F.A. Sanford, for Sanford’s alleged physical abuse against him” (McBride). The jury of this trial ruled that Scott could not sue in a federal court, because he was a slave under Missouri law. Next, Scott appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1856. The Court’s decision was made in 1857. Dred Scott and John Sanford had no idea at this time that their lawsuit would have such a huge impact on United States history. The conflict that started in Missouri in 1846, and lasted until 1857, has become a very significant Supreme Court case. The only reason it is so important today is because the two men involved both strongly disagreed with each other, and were not content with the decisions given to them. There were obviously other factors playing into it, such as physical abuse, and not wanting to pay back money. Overall, the reason it went all the way to the Supreme Court is probably because slavery and African American rights were being questioned, and the Supreme Court wanted “to end the slavery question once and for all” ("Dred Scott v. Sandford."). This meant that many people were questioning it, including the lower courts, so the highest court had to answer the question properly and

finally.
The answer the Supreme Court provided was written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. Under Articles III and IV, “no one but a citizen of the United States could be a citizen of a state, and that only Congress could confer national citizenship” ("Dred Scott v. Sandford."). Essentially, no person descended from an African slave had ever been a citizen. Scott was “not a member of the political community formed and brought into existence of the Constitution,” so Scott had no right to file a lawsuit in a federal court because he was not a citizen. Next, the Court argued that even if Scott was a citizen of a free state, he couldn’t be a citizen of the United States because he was black and Congress determined that blacks could not be citizens. Congress had the sole power to determine national citizenship, which was given to them by the Constitution. Lastly, the Court said that Scott couldn’t be free by living in the Wisconsin Territory and the non-slave states, because Congress didn’t actually have the power to ban slavery. Slaves are property, and because of the Fifth Amendment, Congress can’t take away someone’s property without just compensation (McBride). This decision is said to have “upheld property rights over human rights,” because the decision was counting slaves as property and saying that the master’s just compensation was more important than African people’s rights (Magruder 800).
Although this decision might seem useless now since slavery is abolished, it was actually a very meaningful decision. This court case emphasized that fact that Congress had the power to determine national citizenship, but did not have the right to infringe upon people’s rights. It showed that Congress was powerful but also made sure that the people’s rights were preserved at the same time, which is necessary. The fact that people of African descent were still being looked down upon and denied rights, even by the Supreme Court, shows people’s views at the time. It shows just how badly people thought of slaves, or at least the views of those people who agreed with the decision. Since many people did disagree with the decision, this also is proof to show that people at this time were starting to really see what was wrong and wanting to fix it.
Although this decision was the wrong one, it’s still a very informative one. The judges thought they were ending a commonly questioned topic by putting down the proper law and decision, one that would be just as effective and liked as the other decisions they had made in the past. It’s unlikely that the Supreme Court judges were aware what they were doing was wrong. For obvious reasons now, of course, this was completely wrong and racist. African people should have had rights. But it is true that Congress had those rights to determine national citizenship, and it is great that the U.S. Government was trying to preserve people’s rights based on the Fifth Amendment. It’s just sad that they counted actual people as property. This decision, in modern times, it’s viewed as the worst one ever made because of how racist and morally wrong it was.
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution was a very important part in this Supreme Court case. Another Supreme Court case that used this amendment was Berman v. Parker. In 1945, Congress passed The District of Columbia Redevelopment Act which would allow an agency to locate and redevelop areas of Washington, D.C. Congress gave the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency the right to seize private property with just compensation. This agency wanted to seize an area in which Berman’s department store was located. Berman refused to let them take his land “solely for beautification of the area” ("Berman v. Parker.”). When Berman sued, and the case reached the Supreme Court, it was decided that the Fifth Amendment “does not limit Congress’ power to seize private property with just compensation to any specific purpose” ("Berman v. Parker.”). Also, the Court found that “the power to determine what values to consider in seizing property for public welfare is Congress’ alone” ("Berman v. Parker.”). This court case basically emphasized Congress’ power to seize personal property for any reason, as long as they give just compensation. This relates to Dred Scott v. Sanford because in this case, Congress wasn’t allowed to ban slavery because slaves were personal property that couldn’t be taken away without just compensation.
This Supreme Court case was interesting, but the final decision was partially wrong.

Congress does indeed have the right to determine national citizenship, and the United States should definitely try its hardest to protect people’s personal property. But, also, the U.S. Supreme Court should not have counted African people as property. They should not have been slaves in the first place, but that was not the point of this court case. The Supreme Court was filled with many pro-slavery people, so this explains why this specific decision was mae. Based on today’s standards, this is the worst decision the Supreme Court case had ever made. The men who made the decision were trying to please their country and stop the tension that many people felt over the topic of slavery, but they ultimately failed. It’s unfortunate that African people were at one time “property,” but thankfully the 13th and 14th amendments overturned this decision. This fact shows the general discontent people had with the decision, because they even passed amendments to counteract

it!