banner



Home  ›  What Is The Makeup Of The Us Supreme Court In 1857

What Is The Makeup Of The Us Supreme Court In 1857

Written By Monday 6 June 2022 Add Comment Edit

1857 U.S. Supreme Court case on the citizenship of African-Americans

1857 United States Supreme Court case

Dred Scott five. Sandford

Supreme Courtroom of the United states of america
Argued Feb 11–fourteen, 1856
Reargued December fifteen–xviii, 1856
Decided March vi, 1857
Full case name Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford[a]
Citations lx U.S. 393 (more than)

19 How. 393; 15 L. Ed. 691; 1856 WL 8721; 1856 U.Due south. LEXIS 472
Decision Opinion
Case history
Prior Judgment for defendant, C.C.D. Mo.
Holding
Judgment reversed and conform dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
  1. Persons of African descent cannot be and were never intended to exist citizens under the U.Due south. Constitution. Plaintiff is without standing to file a suit.
  2. The Holding Clause is applicable only to lands possessed at the time of the Constitution's ratification (1787). As such, Congress cannot ban slavery in the territories. The Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional.
  3. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from freeing slaves brought into federal territories.
Court membership
Master Justice
Roger B. Taney
Associate Justices
John McLean· James M. Wayne
John Catron· Peter V. Daniel
Samuel Nelson· Robert C. Grier
Benjamin R. Curtis· John A. Campbell
Case opinions
Majority Taney, joined past Wayne, Catron, Daniel, Nelson, Grier, Campbell
Concurrence Wayne
Concurrence Catron
Concurrence Daniel
Concurrence Nelson, joined by Grier
Concurrence Grier
Concurrence Campbell
Dissent McLean
Dissent Curtis
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V; U.Southward. Const. art. IV, § three, cl. 2; Strader five. Graham; Missouri Compromise

Superseded past
U.S. Const. amends. XIII, XIV, Fifteen;
Civil Rights Human action of 1866;
Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) (in part)[ii]

Dred Scott v. Sandford ,[a] sixty U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark determination of the U.s. Supreme Courtroom in which the Court held that the United States Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for people of African descent, regardless of whether they were enslaved or costless, and then the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could non apply to them.[3] [4] The Supreme Court's decision has been widely denounced, both for how overtly racist the determination was and its crucial role in the beginning of the American Civil War four years later.[5] Legal scholar Bernard Schwartz said that it "stands starting time in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions". Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes chosen it the Court's "greatest self-inflicted wound".[6] Historian Junius P. Rodriguez said that it is "universally condemned as the U.S. Supreme Court's worst determination."[vii] Historian David Thomas Konig said that information technology was "unquestionably, our courtroom's worst decision ever."[8]

The determination was made in the example of Dred Scott, an enslaved black human being whose owners had taken him from Missouri, a slave-property state, into Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was illegal. When his owners later brought him back to Missouri, Scott sued in courtroom for his liberty and claimed that because he had been taken into "complimentary" U.South. territory, he had automatically been freed and was legally no longer a slave. Scott sued kickoff in Missouri state court, which ruled that he was yet a slave under its law. He so sued in U.S. federal court, which ruled against him by deciding that information technology had to use Missouri law to the case. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Courtroom.

In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued a 7–ii decision against Scott. In an opinion written by Principal Justice Roger Taney, the Court ruled that people of African descent "are not included, and were not intended to be included, nether the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and tin can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States". Taney supported his ruling with an extended survey of American state and local laws from the time of the Constitution's drafting in 1787 that purported to show that a "perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the 1 which they had reduced to slavery". Because the Court ruled that Scott was not an American denizen, he was also not a citizen of whatsoever state and, appropriately, could never establish the "diversity of citizenship" that Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires for a U.South. federal court to be able to exercise jurisdiction over a example.[3] Later ruling on those issues surrounding Scott, Taney continued further and struck downwardly the entire Missouri Compromise as a limitation on slavery that exceeded the U.S. Congress's constitutional powers.

Although Taney and several other justices hoped the decision would permanently settle the slavery controversy, which was increasingly dividing the American public, the decision'south effect was the opposite.[9] Taney'south majority opinion suited the slaveholding states, but was intensely decried in all the other states.[4] The decision inflamed the national argue over slavery and deepened the divide that led ultimately to the American Civil War. In 1865, after the Union's victory, the Court's ruling in Dred Scott was superseded by the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.South. Constitution, which abolished slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment, whose first section guaranteed citizenship for "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Background [edit]

Political setting [edit]

The Missouri Compromise created the slave-holding state Missouri (Mo., xanthous) simply prohibited slavery in the rest of the former Louisiana Territory (here, marked Missouri Territory 1812, green) northward of the 36°30' North parallel.

In the late 1810s, a major political dispute arose over the creation of new American states from the vast territory the U.s.a. had acquired from France in 1803 through the Louisiana Purchase.[10] The dispute centered on whether the new states would exist "free" states, like the Northern states, in which slavery would be illegal, or whether they would be "slave" states, similar the Southern states, in which slavery would be legal.[ten] The Southern states wanted the new states to be slave states in lodge to enhance their own political and economic power. The Northern states wanted the new states to be free states for their ain political and economic reasons, as well every bit their moral concerns over allowing the institution of slavery to expand.

In 1820, the U.S. Congress passed legislation known as the "Missouri Compromise" that was intended to resolve the dispute. The Compromise kickoff admitted Maine into the Union as a costless country, then created Missouri out of a portion of the Louisiana Purchase territory and admitted information technology every bit a slave state; at the same time it prohibited slavery in the area n of the Parallel 36°xxx′ n, where most of the territory lay.[10] The legal effects of a slaveowner taking his slaves from Missouri into the free territory n of the 36°thirty′ north parallel, besides every bit the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise itself, eventually came to a head in the Dred Scott case.

Dred Scott and John Emerson [edit]

Dred Scott was built-in a slave in Virginia effectually 1799.[xi] Fiddling is known of his early years.[12] His owner, Peter Blow, moved to Alabama in 1818, taking his half dozen slaves along to work a farm nigh Huntsville. In 1830, Blow gave upward farming and settled in St. Louis, Missouri, where he sold Scott to U.South. Army surgeon Dr. John Emerson.[13] After purchasing Scott, Emerson took him to Fort Armstrong in Illinois. A free state, Illinois had been complimentary every bit a territory under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and had prohibited slavery in its constitution in 1819 when it was admitted as a country.

In 1836, Emerson moved with Scott from Illinois to Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin territory in what has become the state of Minnesota. Slavery in the Wisconsin Territory (some of which, including Fort Snelling, was role of the Louisiana Purchase) was prohibited by the U.S. Congress nether the Missouri Compromise. During his stay at Fort Snelling, Scott married Harriet Robinson in a civil ceremony by Harriet's owner, Major Lawrence Taliaferro, a justice of the peace who was too an Indian amanuensis. The anniversary would take been unnecessary had Dred Scott been a slave, as slave marriages had no recognition in the police force.[fourteen] [13]

In 1837, the army ordered Emerson to Jefferson Barracks Military Post, south of St. Louis. Emerson left Scott and his married woman at Fort Snelling, where he leased their services out for profit. By hiring Scott out in a costless land, Emerson was effectively bringing the institution of slavery into a free state, which was a straight violation of the Missouri Compromise, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Wisconsin Enabling Act.[14]

Irene Sanford Emerson [edit]

Before the end of the year, the ground forces reassigned Emerson to Fort Jesup in Louisiana, where Emerson married Eliza Irene Sanford in February 1838. Emerson sent for Scott and Harriet, who proceeded to Louisiana to serve their master and his wife. Within months, Emerson was transferred back to Fort Snelling. While en route to Fort Snelling, Scott's girl Eliza was built-in on a steamboat under mode on the Mississippi River between Illinois and what would become Iowa. Because Eliza was born in costless territory, she was technically born as a costless person under both federal and state laws. Upon inbound Louisiana, the Scotts could have sued for their liberty, only did not. I scholar suggests that, in all likelihood, the Scotts would take been granted their freedom past a Louisiana court, as it had respected laws of free states that slaveholders forfeited their right to slaves if they brought them in for extended periods. This had been the holding in Louisiana state courts for more than 20 years.[14]

Toward the end of 1838, the army reassigned Emerson dorsum to Fort Snelling. By 1840, Emerson's wife Irene returned to St. Louis with their slaves, while Dr. Emerson served in the Seminole State of war. While in St. Louis, she hired them out. In 1842, Emerson left the army. Later he died in the Iowa Territory in 1843, his widow Irene inherited his estate, including the Scotts. For three years after John Emerson's death, she connected to lease out the Scotts every bit hired slaves. In 1846, Scott attempted to buy his and his family unit's freedom, merely Irene Emerson refused, prompting Scott to resort to legal recourse.[fifteen]

Procedural history [edit]

Scott five. Emerson [edit]

Start country excursion courtroom trial [edit]

Having been unsuccessful in his attempt to purchase his freedom, Dred Scott, with the help of his legal advisers, sued Emerson for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County on Apr half dozen, 1846.[xvi] : 36 A separate petition was filed for his wife Harriet, making them the first married couple to file freedom suits in tandem in their l-year history.[17] : 232 They received financial assistance from the family unit of Dred's previous owner, Peter Blow.[14] Accident'south girl Charlotte was married to Joseph Charless, an officer at the Bank of Missouri. Charless signed legal documents every bit security for the Scotts and afterwards secured the services of the bank's attorney, Samuel Mansfield Bay, for the trial.[thirteen]

It was expected that the Scotts would win their freedom with relative ease.[14] [17] : 241 By 1846, dozens of freedom suits had been won in Missouri past former slaves.[17] Virtually had claimed their legal right to freedom on the ground that they, or their mothers, had previously lived in free states or territories.[17] Amidst the most of import legal precedents were Winny v. Whitesides [18] and Rachel v. Walker. [nineteen] In Winny 5. Whitesides, the Missouri Supreme Court had ruled in 1824 that a person who had been held every bit a slave in Illinois, where slavery was illegal, and then brought to Missouri, was free by virtue of residence in a free state.[16] : 41 In Rachel v. Walker, the state supreme court had ruled that a U.S. Army officer who took a slave to a military mail in a territory where slavery was prohibited and retained her at that place for several years, had thereby "forfeit[ed] his property".[16] : 42 Rachel, similar Dred Scott, had accompanied her enslaver to Fort Snelling.[16]

Scott was represented by 3 different lawyers from the filing of the original petition to the time of the bodily trial, over 1 year later. The first was Francis B. Murdoch, a prolific liberty suit attorney who abruptly left St. Louis.[20] [16] : 38 Murdoch was replaced past Charles D. Drake, an in-law of the Blow family.[xvi] When Drake too left the country, Samuel M. Bay took over as the Scotts' lawyer.[xvi] Irene Emerson was represented past George W. Goode, a proslavery lawyer from Virginia.[21] : 130 Past the time the case went to trial, it had been reassigned from Judge John K. Krum, who was proslavery, to Judge Alexander Hamilton, who was known to exist sympathetic to freedom suits.[13]

Dred Scott 5. Irene Emerson finally went to trial for the first time on June xxx, 1847.[21] : 130 Henry Peter Accident testified in court that his male parent had endemic Dred and sold him to John Emerson.[sixteen] : 44 The fact that Scott had been taken to live on free soil was clearly established through depositions from witnesses who had known Scott and Dr. Emerson at Fort Armstrong and Fort Snelling.[21] : 130–131 Grocer Samuel Russell testified that he had hired the Scotts from Irene Emerson and paid her father, Alexander Sanford, for their services.[21] Upon cantankerous test, yet, Russell admitted that the leasing arrangements had actually been fabricated past his wife, Adeline.[21]

Thus, Russell's testimony was ruled hearsay, and the jury returned a verdict for Emerson.[13] This created a seemingly contradictory outcome in which Scott was ordered by the court to remain Irene Emerson'south slave, because he had been unable to prove that he was previously Irene Emerson'south slave.[13]

First state supreme court appeal [edit]

Bay moved immediately for a new trial on the ground that Scott's case had been lost due to a technicality which could be rectified, rather than the facts.[16] : 47 Approximate Hamilton finally issued the gild for a new trial on Dec 2, 1847.[16] Two days later on, Emerson'south lawyer objected to a new trial by filing a beak of exceptions.[16] [21] : 131 The example was so taken on writ of error to the Supreme Court of Missouri.[13] Scott's new lawyers, Alexander P. Field and David North. Hall, argued that the writ of error was inappropriate because the lower court had non all the same issued a final judgment.[xvi] : 50 The state supreme court agreed unanimously with their position and dismissed Emerson's appeal on June 30, 1848.[sixteen] The main issue before the court at this stage was procedural and no substantive bug were discussed.[16]

2d state circuit court trial [edit]

Before the state supreme court had convened, Goode had presented a motion on behalf of Emerson to accept Scott taken into custody and hired out.[21] On March 17, 1848, Judge Hamilton issued the social club to the St. Louis County sheriff.[xvi] [b] Anyone hiring Scott had to post a bond of vi-hundred dollars.[16] : 49 Wages he earned during that time were placed in escrow, to exist paid to the party that prevailed in the lawsuit.[16] Scott would remain in the sheriff's custody or hired out by him until March xviii, 1857.[xvi] One of Scott's lawyers, David N. Hall, hired him starting March 17, 1849.[17] : 261

The St. Louis Fire of 1849, a cholera epidemic, and ii continuances delayed the retrial in the St. Louis Excursion Court until January 12, 1850.[13] [xvi] : 51 Irene Emerson was at present dedicated by Hugh A. Garland and Lyman D. Norris, while Scott was represented past Field and Hall.[16] Gauge Alexander Hamilton was presiding.[13] The proceedings were similar to the first trial.[16] : 52 The same depositions from Catherine A. Anderson and Miles H. Clark were used to establish that Dr. Emerson had taken Scott to gratuitous territory.[16]

This time, the hearsay trouble was surmounted past a degradation from Adeline Russell stating that she had hired the Scotts from Irene Emerson, thereby proving that Emerson claimed them as her slaves.[16] Samuel Russell testified in courtroom once again that he had paid for their services.[xvi] The defence force then changed strategy and argued in their summation that Mrs. Emerson had every right to hire out Dred Scott, considering he had lived with Dr. Emerson at Fort Armstrong and Fort Snelling nether military jurisdiction, not nether ceremonious law.[16] [21] : 132 In doing so, the defense ignored the precedent set past Rachel v. Walker. [21] In his rebuttal, Hall stated that the fact that they were war machine posts did non affair, and pointed out that Dr. Emerson had left Scott backside at Fort Snelling, hired out to others, after being reassigned to a new postal service.[22]

The jury quickly returned a verdict in favor of Dred Scott, nominally making him a complimentary man.[21] [16] : 53 Judge Hamilton alleged Harriet, Eliza and Lizzie Scott to be costless as well.[sixteen] Garland moved immediately for a new trial, and was overruled.[22] [16] : 55 On February 13, 1850, Emerson'south defense filed a pecker of exceptions, which was certified past Judge Hamilton, setting into motion another appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court.[16] Counsel for the opposing sides signed an understanding that moving forward, only Dred Scott v. Irene Emerson would be advanced, and that any decision fabricated by the high court would employ to Harriet's adjust, as well.[16] : 43 In 1849 or 1850, Irene Emerson left St. Louis and moved to Springfield, Massachusetts.[xvi] : 55 Her blood brother, John F. A. Sanford, continued looking later her business organisation interests when she left,[23] and her departure had no touch on the instance.[16] : 56

Second land supreme court appeal [edit]

Both parties filed briefs with the Supreme Court of Missouri on March eight, 1850.[sixteen] : 57 A busy docket delayed consideration of the case until the October term.[21] : 133 By then, the issue of slavery had become politically charged, even within the judiciary.[24] [21] : 134 Although the Missouri Supreme Courtroom had not yet overturned precedent in freedom suits, in the 1840s, the court'southward proslavery justices had explicitly stated their opposition to freeing slaves.[24] After the courtroom convened on October 25, 1850, the two justices who were proslavery anti-Benton Democrats – William Barclay Napton and James Harvey Birch – persuaded John Ferguson Ryland, a Benton Democrat, to join them in a unanimous conclusion that Dred Scott remained a slave under Missouri law.[21] [16] : 60 However, Judge Napton delayed writing the court's opinion for months.[21] So in August 1851, both Napton and Birch lost their seats in the Missouri Supreme Court, following the land's commencement supreme court election, with only Ryland remaining as an incumbent.[21] The case thus needed to exist considered again by the newly elected court.[21] : 135 The reorganized Missouri Supreme Court now included two "moderates" – Hamilton Hazard and John Ryland – and ane staunch proslavery justice, William Scott.[24]

David Due north. Hall had prepared the brief for Dred Scott, only died in March 1851.[sixteen] : 57, 61 Alexander P. Field continued alone every bit counsel for Dred Scott, and resubmitted the aforementioned briefs from 1850 for both sides.[16] On Nov 29, 1851, the instance was taken under consideration, on written briefs lone, and a determination was reached.[sixteen] However, before Judge Scott could write the court'due south stance, Lyman Norris, co-counsel for Irene Emerson, obtained permission to submit a new cursory he had been preparing, to replace the original one submitted past Garland.[16] : 56,61

Norris's brief has been characterized as "a sweeping denunciation of the say-so of both the [Northwest] Ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri Compromise."[16] : 62 Although he stopped short of questioning their constitutionality, Norris questioned their applicability and criticized the early on Missouri Supreme Court, ridiculing former Justice George Tompkins as "the great apostle of freedom at that twenty-four hour period."[24] [16] Reviewing the court's by decisions on freedom suits, Norris acknowledged that if Rachel five. Walker was allowed to stand, his client would lose.[24] Norris then challenged the concept of "in one case free, always gratuitous", and asserted that the courtroom under Tompkins had been wrong to dominion that the Ordinance of 1787 remained in forcefulness after the ratification of the U.Due south. Constitution in 1788.[24] Finally, he argued that the Missouri Compromise should be overlooked whenever information technology interfered with Missouri constabulary, and that the laws of other states should non be enforced, if their enforcement would cause Missouri citizens to lose their property.[24] In back up of his argument, he cited Principal Justice Roger B. Taney's opinion in the United States Supreme Courtroom case Strader v. Graham, which argued that the status of a slave returning from a free state must exist adamant by the slave state itself.[24] [sixteen] : 63 According to historian Walter Ehrlich, the endmost of Norris's brief was "a racist harangue that not only revealed the prejudices of its writer, simply also indicated how the Dred Scott instance had become a vehicle for the expression of such views".[16] : 63 Noting that Norris's proslavery "doctrines" were later incorporated into the courtroom's final conclusion,[16] : 62 Ehrlich writes (accent his):

From this point on, the Dred Scott case clearly changed from a genuine freedom adapt to the controversial political issue for which it became infamous in American history. [16]

On March 22, 1852, Approximate William Scott announced the conclusion of the Missouri Supreme Courtroom that Dred Scott remained a slave, and ordered the trial court's judgment to be reversed.[21] : 137 Judge Ryland concurred, while Principal Justice Hamilton Gamble dissented.[24] The majority opinion written by Judge Scott focused on the issue of comity or conflict of laws,[21] and relied on "states' rights" rhetoric:[16] : 65

Every State has the right of determining how far, in a spirit of comity, it will respect the laws of other States. Those laws accept no intrinsic correct to be enforced beyond the limits of the State for which they were enacted. The respect immune them will depend altogether on their conformity to the policy of our institutions. No Country is bound to carry into effect enactments conceived in a spirit hostile to that which pervades her own laws.[25]

Judge Scott did not deny the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, and acknowledged that its prohibition of slavery was "accented", only simply within the specified territory.[sixteen] Thus, a slave crossing the edge could obtain his freedom, but merely within the court of the free state.[sixteen] Rejecting the court'due south own precedent, Scott argued that "'In one case complimentary' did not necessarily mean 'e'er free.'"[16] : 66 He cited the Kentucky Court of Appeals decision in Graham v. Strader, which had held that a Kentucky slaveowner who permitted a slave to become to Ohio temporarily, did not forfeit ownership of the slave.[xvi] To justify overturning iii decades of precedent, Judge Scott argued that circumstances had changed:[21]

Times now are not every bit they were when the sometime decisions on this field of study were fabricated. Since so non but individuals but States have been possessed with a night and roughshod spirit in relation to slavery, whose gratification is sought in the pursuit of measures, whose inevitable event must be the overthrow and destruction of our government. Nether such circumstances it does not behoove the State of Missouri to show the least countenance to any measure which might appease this spirit. She is willing to assume her total responsibility for the existence of slavery within her limits, nor does she seek to share or divide information technology with others.[25]

On March 23, 1852, the twenty-four hours afterward the Missouri Supreme Court decision had been announced, Irene Emerson's lawyers filed an gild in the St. Louis Excursion Court for the bonds signed past the Accident family to cover the Scotts' court costs; return of the slaves themselves; and transfer of their wages earned over four years, plus 6 percent interest.[13] On June 29, 1852, Judge Hamilton overruled the order.[xvi] : 70

Scott v. Sanford [edit]

The case looked hopeless, and the Blow family could no longer pay for Scott's legal costs. Scott likewise lost both of his lawyers when Alexander Field moved to Louisiana and David Hall died. The case was undertaken pro bono by Roswell Field, who employed Scott as a janitor. Field also discussed the instance with LaBeaume, who had taken over the lease on the Scotts in 1851.[26] After the Missouri Supreme Court determination, Judge Hamilton turned down a request past Emerson's lawyers to release the rent payments from escrow and to deliver the slaves into their owner'southward custody.[thirteen]

In 1853, Dred Scott again sued his current possessor John Sanford, but this fourth dimension in federal courtroom. Sanford returned to New York and the federal courts had diversity jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. In improver to the existing complaints, Scott alleged that Sanford had assaulted his family and held them captive for six hours on Jan i, 1853.[27]

At trial in 1854, Gauge Robert William Wells directed the jury to rely on Missouri law on the question of Scott'south freedom. Since the Missouri Supreme Court had held that Scott remained a slave, the jury found in favor of Sanford. Scott then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the clerk misspelled the accused's proper name, and the instance was recorded as Dred Scott v. Sandford, with an ever-erroneous title. Scott was represented before the Supreme Court by Montgomery Blair and George Ticknor Curtis, whose brother Benjamin was a Supreme Court Justice. Sanford was represented by Reverdy Johnson and Henry S. Geyer.[13]

Sanford every bit defendant [edit]

When the example was filed, the 2 sides agreed on a argument of facts that claimed Scott had been sold by Dr. Emerson to John Sanford, though this was a legal fiction. Dr. Emerson had died in 1843, and Dred Scott had filed his 1847 suit against Irene Emerson. There is no record of Dred Scott'south transfer to Sanford or of his transfer back to Irene. John Sanford died before long before Scott'south manumission, and Scott was not listed in the probate records of Sanford's estate.[26] Besides, Sanford was not interim equally Dr. Emerson'south executor, as he was never appointed past a probate court, and the Emerson estate had been settled when the federal case was filed.[xiv]

The murky circumstances of ownership led many to conclude the parties to Dred Scott v. Sandford contrived to create a test example.[15] [26] [27] Mrs. Emerson's remarriage to abolitionist U.S. Representative Calvin C. Chaffee seemed suspicious to contemporaries, and Sanford was idea to exist a front and to have allowed himself to be sued, despite not actually being Scott's owner. Still, Sanford had been involved in the case since 1847, before his sis married Chaffee. He had secured counsel for his sister in the state case, and he engaged the same lawyer for his ain defense in the federal example.[15] Sanford also consented to exist represented by 18-carat pro-slavery advocates before the Supreme Court, rather than to put upwards a token defense.

Influence of President Buchanan [edit]

Historians discovered that after the Supreme Courtroom heard arguments in the case but before it issued a ruling, President-elect James Buchanan wrote to his friend, Supreme Court Acquaintance Justice John Catron, to ask whether the case would be decided past the Court earlier his inauguration in March 1857.[28] Buchanan hoped that the decision would quell unrest in the country over the slavery issue past issuing a ruling to take information technology out of political contend. He later successfully pressured Acquaintance Justice Robert Cooper Grier, a Northerner, to join the Southern bulk in Dred Scott to prevent the appearance that the decision was made along sectional lines.[29]

Biographer Jean H. Bakery articulates the view that Buchanan's apply of political force per unit area on a member of a sitting court was regarded then, every bit at present, to exist highly improper.[30] Republicans fueled speculation as to Buchanan's influence by publicizing that Taney had secretly informed Buchanan of the decision. Buchanan declared in his inaugural address that the slavery question would "be speedily and finally settled" past the Supreme Court.[31] [fourteen]

Supreme Courtroom decision [edit]

On March 6, 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Dred Scott in a 7–2 conclusion that fills over 200 pages in the The states Reports.[10] The decision contains opinions from all nine justices, but the "majority opinion" has e'er been the focus of the controversy.[32]

Opinion of the Court [edit]

Vii justices formed the bulk and joined an opinion written past chief justice Roger Taney. Taney began with what he saw every bit the core issue in the case: whether or not black people could possess federal citizenship under the U.S. Constitution.[10]

The question is simply this: Tin a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold equally slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied [sic] past that instrument to the denizen?

— Dred Scott, 60 U.Southward. at 403.

In respond, the Court ruled that they could not. Information technology held that black people could non be American citizens, and therefore a lawsuit to which they were a party could never qualify for the "diversity of citizenship" that Article III of the Constitution requires for American federal courts to accept jurisdiction over cases that do not involve federal questions.[10]

The principal rationale for the Court'due south ruling was Taney'south assertion that black African slaves and their descendants were never intended to be part of the American social and political mural.[10]

We call up ... that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore merits none of the rights and privileges which that musical instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time [of America's founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained discipline to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such equally those who held the power and the Authorities might cull to grant them.

— Dred Scott, sixty U.S. at 404–05.[33]

Taney and so extensively reviewed laws from the original American states that involved the condition of black Americans at the time of the Constitution'southward drafting in 1787.[10] He ended that these laws showed that a "perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to exist erected between the white race and the ane which they had reduced to slavery".[34] Thus, he concluded, blackness people were not American citizens, and could non sue as citizens in federal courts.[ten] This meant that U.S. states lacked the power to change the legal condition of black people by granting them state citizenship.[32]

Information technology is hard at this solar day to realize the state of public stance in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Annunciation of Independence, and when the Constitution of the U.s. was framed and adopted. ... They had for more than a century earlier been regarded every bit beings of an inferior order ... and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.

— Dred Scott, 60 U.South. at 407.

This holding ordinarily would have ended the decision, since information technology disposed of Dred Scott'due south case, but Taney did not conclude the matter before the Court in the normal fashion.[10] He went on to assess the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise itself, writing that the Compromise'south legal provisions intended to gratuitous slaves who were living north of the 36°Due north latitude line in the western territories. In the Court'due south judgment, this would constitute the regime depriving slaveowners of their belongings—since slaves were legally the holding of their owners—without due process of constabulary, which is forbidden under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.[35] Taney besides reasoned that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights implicitly precluded any possibility of constitutional rights for blackness African slaves and their descendants.[32] Thus, Taney ended:

Now, ... the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. ... Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from property and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United states of america north of the [36°N 36' latitude] line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void.

— Dred Scott, 60 U.Due south. at 451–52.

Taney held that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, marking the commencement time since the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison that the Supreme Court had struck downward a federal law, although the Missouri Compromise had already been effectively overridden by the Kansas–Nebraska Deed. Taney made this argument on a narrow definition of the Property Clause of Section 3 of Article iv of the Constitution. The Property Clause states, "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States..." Taney made the argument that the Property Clause "applied only to the belongings which the States held in mutual at that time, and has no reference whatever to whatever territory or other property which the new sovereignty might afterwards itself larn."[36] Taney asserted that considering the Northwest Territory was not part of the United States at the time of the Constitution's ratification, Congress did not accept the authority to ban slavery in the territory. According to Taney, the Missouri Compromise exceeded the scope of Congress's powers and was unconstitutional, and thus Dred Scott was yet a slave regardless of his time spent in the parts of the Northwest Territory that were north of 36°N,[37] and he was yet a slave under Missouri police, and the Court had to follow Missouri police force in the matter. For all these reasons, the Court concluded that Scott could not bring adapt in U.S. federal court.[37]

Dissents [edit]

Justices Benjamin Robbins Curtis and John McLean were the only 2 dissenters from the Court'south decision, and both filed dissenting opinions.

Curtis's 67-page dissent argued that Taney'southward assertion that black people could not possess federal U.Due south. citizenship was historically and legally baseless.[32] Curtis pointed out that at the time of the Constitution'due south adoption in 1789, black men could vote in five of the 13 states. Legally, that fabricated them citizens of both their individual states and the United States federally. Curtis cited many state statutes and state court decisions supporting his position. His dissent was "extremely persuasive", and information technology prompted Taney to add 18 additional pages to his opinion in an try to rebut Curtis'due south arguments.[32]

McLean's dissent accounted the argument that black people could non exist citizens "more a matter of taste than of law". He attacked much of the Court's decision as obiter dicta that was non legally administrative on the basis that once the court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Scott's example, information technology should accept just dismissed the action, rather than passing judgment on the merits of the claims.

Curtis and McLean both attacked the Court's overturning of the Missouri Compromise on its merits. They noted that it was not necessary to determine the question and that none of the authors of the Constitution had ever objected on constitutional grounds to the Congress'southward adoption of the antislavery provisions of the Northwest Ordinance passed by the Continental Congress or the subsequent acts that barred slavery north of 36°thirty' N, or the prohibition on importing slaves from overseas passed in 1808. Curtis said slavery was not listed in the constitution every bit a "natural right", just rather a creation of municipal law. He pointed out the constitution said "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Belongings belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be and then construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of whatever particular State." Since slavery was non mentioned as an exception, he felt a prohibition of it fell within the scope of needed rules and regulations Congress was free to laissez passer.[38]

Reactions [edit]

The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott was "greeted with unmitigated wrath from every segment of the United States except the slave holding states."[32] The American political historian Robert Thousand. McCloskey described:

The tempest of malediction that burst over the judges seems to have stunned them; far from extinguishing the slavery controversy, they had fanned its flames and had, moreover, deeply endangered the security of the judicial arm of government. No such vilification equally this had been heard fifty-fifty in the wrathful days following the Alien and Sedition Acts. Taney'due south opinion was assailed by the Northern press as a wicked "stump oral communication" and was shamefully misquoted and distorted. "If the people obey this determination," said ane newspaper, "they disobey God."[37]

Many Republicans, including Abraham Lincoln, who was rapidly becoming the leading Republican in Illinois, regarded the decision equally part of a plot to aggrandize and eventually impose the legalization of slavery throughout all of the states.[39] Some southern extremists wanted all states to recognize slavery as a ramble right. Lincoln rejected the court's majority opinion that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution," pointing out that the constitution did not ever mention holding in reference to slaves and in fact explicitly referred to them equally "persons".[40] Southern Democrats considered Republicans to be lawless rebels who were provoking disunion by their refusal to accept the Supreme Court's decision as the law of the land. Many northern opponents of slavery offered a legal argument for refusing to recognize the Dred Scott decision on the Missouri Compromise as binding. They argued that the Courtroom'due south determination that the federal courts had no jurisdiction to hear the case rendered the remainder of the decision obiter dictum—a non binding passing remark rather than an authoritative interpretation of the law. Douglas attacked that position in the Lincoln-Douglas debates:

Mr. Lincoln goes for a warfare upon the Supreme Courtroom of the U.s.a., because of their judicial decision in the Dred Scott instance. I yield obedience to the decisions in that court—to the final determination of the highest judicial tribunal known to our constitution.

In a speech at Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln responded that the Republican Party was non seeking to defy the Supreme Court, but he hoped they could convince it to contrary its ruling.[41]

We believe, as much as Judge Douglas, (mayhap more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of government. We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, non only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed merely past subpoena of the Constitution every bit provided in that instrument itself. More than than this would be revolution. But we recollect the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has oft over-ruled its ain decisions, and we shall do what we tin to have it to over-rule this. We offer no resistance to it.

Democrats had refused to have the court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution equally permanently bounden. During the Andrew Jackson administration, Taney, so Attorney General, had written:

Whatever may exist the force of the decision of the Supreme Court in bounden the parties and settling their rights in the particular case before them, I am not prepared to admit that a structure given to the constitution past the Supreme Court in deciding any ane or more cases fixes of itself irrevokably [sic] and permanently its construction in that particular and binds the states and the Legislative and executive branches of the General regime, forever afterwards to suit to it and adopt it in every other case every bit the true reading of the instrument although all of them may unite in assertive it erroneous.[42]

Frederick Douglass, a prominent black abolitionist who considered the conclusion to exist unconstitutional and Taney's reasoning reverse to the Founding Fathers' vision, predicted that political conflict could not be avoided:

The highest say-so has spoken. The voice of the Supreme Courtroom has gone out over the troubled waves of the National Conscience.... [But] my hopes were never brighter than now. I take no fear that the National Conscience will be put to sleep by such an open, glaring, and scandalous tissue of lies....[43]

Co-ordinate to Jefferson Davis, and then a U.South. Senator from Mississippi, and time to come President of the Amalgamated States of America, the case merely "presented the question whether Cuffee [a derogatory term for a blackness person] should be kept in his normal condition or not . . . [and] whether the Congress of the United states could determine what might or might not be holding in a Territory–the example being that of an officer of the army sent into a Territory to perform his public duty, having taken with him his negro slave".[44]

Impact on both parties [edit]

Irene Emerson moved to Massachusetts in 1850 and married Calvin C. Chaffee, a doctor and abolitionist who was elected to Congress on the Know Zip and Republican tickets. Post-obit the Supreme Court ruling, pro-slavery newspapers attacked Chaffee equally a hypocrite. Chaffee protested that Dred Scott belonged to his blood brother-in-law and that he had nothing to practise with Scott'southward enslavement.[27] Nevertheless, the Chaffees executed a human action transferring the Scott family to Henry Taylor Blow, the son of Scott's former owner, Peter Blow. Chaffee's lawyer suggested the transfer every bit the most convenient way of freeing Scott since Missouri law required manumitters to appear in person earlier the court.[27]

Taylor Accident filed the manumission papers with Judge Hamilton on May 26, 1857. The emancipation of Dred Scott and his family was national news and was historic in northern cities. Scott worked equally a porter in a hotel in St. Louis, where he was a minor celebrity. His wife took in laundry. Dred Scott died of tuberculosis on November 7, 1858. Harriet died on June 17, 1876.[13]

Aftermath [edit]

Economic [edit]

Economist Charles Calomiris and historian Larry Schweikart discovered that uncertainty about whether the entire W would all of a sudden become slave territory or engulfed in combat similar "Haemorrhage Kansas" gripped the markets immediately. The east–w railroads collapsed immediately (although northward–s lines were unaffected), causing, in turn, the almost-plummet of several large banks and the runs that ensued. What followed the runs has been called the Panic of 1857.

The Panic of 1857, unlike the Panic of 1837, most exclusively impacted the North, a fact that Calomiris and Schweikart attribute to the S's organization of branch banking, as opposed to the North's system of unit banking. In the Due south's branch banking organization, information moved reliably among the branch banks and manual of the panic was minor. Northern unit banks, in contrast, were competitors and seldom shared such vital information.[45]

Political [edit]

Southerners, who had grown uncomfortable with the Kansas-Nebraska Deed, argued that they had a ramble right to bring slaves into the territories, regardless of whatsoever decision by a territorial legislature on the field of study. The Dred Scott decision seemed to endorse that view.

Although Taney believed that the decision represented a compromise that would be a concluding settlement of the slavery question past transforming a contested political issue into a matter of settled law, the conclusion produced the opposite result. It strengthened Northern opposition to slavery, divided the Democratic Political party on sectional lines, encouraged secessionist elements among Southern supporters of slavery to make bolder demands, and strengthened the Republican Party.

Later on references [edit]

In 1859, when defending John Anthony Copeland and Shields Green from the charge of treason, following their participation in John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry, their attorney, George Sennott, cited the Dred Scott decision in arguing successfully that since they were not citizens co-ordinate to that Supreme Court ruling, they could not commit treason.[46] The charge of treason was dropped, just they were found guilty and executed on other charges.

Justice John Marshall Harlan was the lone dissenting vote in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which declared racial segregation constitutional and created the concept of "separate but equal". In his dissent, Harlan wrote that the bulk's stance would "prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made past this tribunal in the Dred Scott case".[47]

Charles Evans Hughes, writing in 1927 on the Supreme Court's history, described Dred Scott v. Sandford as a "cocky-inflicted wound" from which the court would not recover for many years.[48] [49] [50]

In a memo to Justice Robert H. Jackson in 1952, for whom he was clerking, on the bailiwick of Brown 5. Board of Education, the future Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that "Scott v. Sandford was the result of Taney'southward effort to protect slaveholders from legislative interference."[51]

Justice Antonin Scalia made the comparison between Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and Dred Scott in an effort to run into Roe five. Wade overturned:

Dred Scott ... rested upon the concept of "substantive due process" that the Court praises and employs today. Indeed, Dred Scott was very possibly the showtime application of substantive due process in the Supreme Court, the original precedent for... Roe v. Wade.[52]

Scalia noted that the Dred Scott decision had been written and championed by Taney and left the justice'south reputation irrevocably tarnished. Taney, who was attempting to finish the disruptive question of the hereafter of slavery, wrote a decision that "inflamed the national debate over slavery and deepened the divide that led ultimately to the American Civil War".[53]

Chief Justice John Roberts compared Obergefell five. Hodges (2015) to Dred Scott, as another case of trying to settle a contentious consequence through a ruling that went across the scope of the Constitution.[54]

Legacy [edit]

  • 1977: The Scotts' great-grandson, John A. Madison, Jr., an attorney, gave the invocation at the ceremony at the Old Courthouse in St. Louis, a National Historic Landmark, for the dedication of a National Historic Marker commemorating the Scotts' case tried at that place.[55]
  • 2000: Harriet and Dred Scott'south petition papers in their liberty adapt were displayed at the main branch of the St. Louis Public Library, post-obit the discovery of more 300 freedom suits in the athenaeum of the U.S. circuit courtroom.[56]
  • 2006: A new historic plaque was erected at the One-time Courthouse to honour the active roles of both Dred and Harriet Scott in their freedom accommodate and the instance's significance in U.South. history.[57]
  • 2012: A monument depicting Dred and Harriet Scott was erected at the Sometime Courthouse'due south east entrance facing the St. Louis Gateway Arch.[58]

Run into also [edit]

  • Anticanon
  • American slave court cases
  • Freedom suit
  • Origins of the American Civil War
  • Privileges and Immunities Clause
  • Timeline of the civil rights movement

Notes [edit]

  1. ^ a b John Sandford'south surname was actually "Sanford". A Supreme Court clerk of courtroom misspelled his name in 1856 and the mistake was never corrected.[1]
  2. ^ Legal historian Walter Ehrlich implies that the custody order applied only to Dred Scott, while Don Fehrenbacher suggests that it applied to both Dred and Harriet.

References [edit]

Citations [edit]

  1. ^ Vishneski (1988), p. 373, note 1.
  2. ^ Daniel A. Farber, A Fatal Loss of Residuum: Dred Scott Revisited, UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 1782963 (2011).
  3. ^ a b Chemerinsky (2015), p. 722. sfnp error: no target: CITEREFChemerinsky2015 (help)
  4. ^ a b Nowak & Rotunda (2012), §18.vi.
  5. ^ Staff (October 14, 2015). "13 Worst Supreme Court Decisions of All Time". FindLaw . Retrieved June x, 2021.
  6. ^ Bernard Schwartz (1997). A Book of Legal Lists: The All-time and Worst in American Police . Oxford University Press. p. 70. ISBN978-0-19-802694-five.
  7. ^ Junius P. Rodriguez (2007). Slavery in the U.s.: A Social, Political, and Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 1. ISBN9781851095445.
  8. ^ David Konig; et al. (2010). The Dred Scott Case: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Race and Law. Ohio University Press. p. 213. ISBN9780821419120.
  9. ^ Chemerinsky (2015), p. 723. sfnp fault: no target: CITEREFChemerinsky2015 (help)
  10. ^ a b c d e f thousand h i j Chemerinsky (2019), § 9.3.ane, p. 750.
  11. ^ Melvin I. Urofsky, Dred Scott at the Encyclopædia Britannica
  12. ^ Earl M. Maltz, Dred Scott and the Politics of Slavery (2007)
  13. ^ a b c d e f chiliad h i j k l m "Missouri'due south Dred Scott Case, 1846–1857". Missouri Digital Heritage: African American History Initiative . Retrieved July xv, 2015.
  14. ^ a b c d due east f g Finkelman (2007).
  15. ^ a b c Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics (2001)
  16. ^ a b c d due east f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u five w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax Ehrlich, Walter (2007). They Take No Rights: Dred Scott's Struggle for Freedom. Applewood Books.
  17. ^ a b c d e VanderVelde, Lea (2009). Mrs. Dred Scott: A Life on Slavery's Frontier. Oxford University Printing. ISBN9780195366563.
  18. ^ one Mo. 472, 475 (Mo. 1824).
  19. ^ 4 Mo. 350 (Mo. 1836).
  20. ^ Gardner, Eric (Jump 2007). "'You Take No Business to Whip Me': The Freedom Suits of Polly Launder and Lucy Ann Delaney". African American Review. 41 (1): xl, 47. JSTOR 40033764.
  21. ^ a b c d due east f g h i j thou l m n o p q r s Fehrenbacher, Don Edward (1981). Slavery, Police force and Politics: The Dred Scott Instance in Historical Perspective. New York: Oxford Academy Press. ISBN0-19-502882-1.
  22. ^ a b Lawson, John, ed. (1921). American State Trials. Vol. thirteen. St. Louis: Thomas Law Book Company. pp. 237–238.
  23. ^ Finkelman, Paul (December 2006). "Scott v. Sandford: The Court'southward Most Dreadful Example and How Information technology Changed History". Chicago-Kent Law Review. 82 (ane): 25 – via Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Police force.
  24. ^ a b c d e f 1000 h i Boman, Dennis Grand. (2000). "The Dred Scott Case Reconsidered: The Legal and Political Context in Missouri". American Journal of Legal History. 44 (iv): 421, 423–424, 426. doi:10.2307/3113785. JSTOR 3113785.
  25. ^ a b "Scott v. Emerson, 15 Mo. 576 (1852)". Caselaw Access Projection, Harvard Constabulary Schoolhouse . Retrieved April 1, 2022.
  26. ^ a b c Ehrlich, Walter (September 1968). "Was the Dred Scott Instance Valid?". The Journal of American History. Organization of American Historians. 55 (2): 256–265. doi:10.2307/1899556. JSTOR 1899556.
  27. ^ a b c d Hardy, David T. (2012). "Dred Scott, John San(d)ford, and the Instance for Collusion" (PDF). Northern Kentucky Law Review. 41 (1). Archived from the original (PDF) on Oct 10, 2015.
  28. ^ Maltz, Earl Grand. (2007). Dred Scott and the politics of slavery. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. p. 115. ISBN978-0-7006-1502-5.
  29. ^ Faragher, John Mack; et al. (2005). Out of Many: A History of the American People (Revised Press (4th Ed) ed.). Englewood Cliffs, Northward.J: Prentice Hall. p. 388. ISBN0-13-195130-0.
  30. ^ Baker, Jean H. (2004). James Buchanan: The American Presidents Serial: The 15th President, 1857–1861. Macmillan. ISBN978-0-8050-6946-4.
  31. ^ "James Buchanan: Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989". Bartleby.com. Retrieved July 26, 2012.
  32. ^ a b c d e f Nowak & Rotunda (2012), § 18.6.
  33. ^ Quoted in role in Chemerinsky (2019), § 9.3.1, p. 750.
  34. ^ Chemerinsky (2019), § 9.3.1, p. 750, quoting Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 409.
  35. ^ Chemerinsky (2019), § 9.3.1, pp. 750–51.
  36. ^ ( Dred Scott 5. Sanford , 60 U.Southward. 149.)
  37. ^ a b c McCloskey (2010), p. 62.
  38. ^ "Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) Excerpts From Majority and Dissenting Opinions". Bill of Rights Establish.
  39. ^ "Digital History". www.digitalhistory.uh.edu . Retrieved June 12, 2019.
  40. ^ "Abraham Lincoln'south Cooper Union Address". www.abrahamlincolnonline.org.
  41. ^ "Oral communication at Springfield, June 26, 1857".
  42. ^ Don East. Fehrenbacher (1978/2001), The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Constabulary and Politics, reprint, New York: Oxford, Part iii, "Consequences and Echoes", Chapter 18, "The Judges Judged", p. 441; unpublished opinion, transcript in Carl B. Swisher Papers, Manuscript Sectionalization, Library of Congress.
  43. ^ Finkleman, Paul (March 15, 1997). Dred Scott vs. Sandford: A Brief History with Documents – Google Boeken. ISBN9780312128074.
  44. ^ Address to the United States Senate on May 7, 1860, reprinted equally Appendix F to Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Regime (1880).
  45. ^ Charles Calomiris and Larry Schweikart, "The Panic of 1857: Origins, Transmission, Containment", Journal of Economic History, LI, December 1990, pp. 807–34.
  46. ^ Lubet, Steven (June 1, 2013). "Execution in Virginia, 1859: The Trials of Greenish and Copeland". North Carolina Constabulary Review. 91 (v).
  47. ^ Fehrenbacher, p. 580.
  48. ^ Hughes, Charles Evans (1936) [1928]. The Supreme Courtroom of the U.s.. Columbia Academy Press. pp. l–51. ISBN978-0-231-08567-0.
  49. ^ "Introduction to the courtroom opinion on the Dred Scott example". U.S. Section of State. Retrieved July 16, 2015.
  50. ^ "Remarks of the Master Justice". Supreme Courtroom of the United States. March 21, 2003. Retrieved Nov 22, 2007.
  51. ^ Rehnquist, William. "A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases" Archived 2008-09-21 at the Wayback Machine.
  52. ^ Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.Southward. 833 (1992). FindLaw.
  53. ^ Carey, Patrick W. (April 2002). "Political Atheism: Dred Scott, Roger Brooke Taney, and Orestes A. Brownson". The Catholic Historical Review. The Catholic University of America Press. 88 (2): 207–229. doi:x.1353/true cat.2002.0072. ISSN 1534-0708. S2CID 153950640.
  54. ^ Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.South. (1992).
  55. ^ Arenson, Adam (2010), "Dred Scott versus the Dred Scott Case", The Dred Scott Instance: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Race and Constabulary, Ohio University Press, p. 36, ISBN978-0821419120
  56. ^ Arenson (2010), p. 38
  57. ^ Arenson (2010), p. 39
  58. ^ Patrick, Robert (Baronial 18, 2015). "St. Louis judges want sculpture to honor slaves who sought freedom here". stltoday.com . Retrieved September two, 2018. Attendees get their first await afterwards the unveiling of the new Dred and Harriet Scott statue on the grounds of the Old Courthouse in downtown St. Louis on Fri, June 8, 2012.

Works cited [edit]

  • Arenson, Adam (2010). "Dred Scott Versus the Dred Scott Case". In Konig, David Thomas; Finkelman, Paul; Bracey, Christopher Alan (eds.). The Dred Scott Example: Historical and Gimmicky Perspectives on Race and Constabulary. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. ISBN978-0821419120.
  • Chemerinsky, Erwin (2019). Constitutional Police force: Principles and Policies (6th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer. ISBN978-1-4548-9574-9.
  • Ehrlich, Walter (1968). "Was the Dred Scott Case Valid?". The Journal of American History. 55 (2): 256–265. doi:10.2307/1899556. JSTOR 1899556.
  • Finkelman, Paul (2007). "Scott 5. Sandford: The Court's Most Dreadful Case and How it Changed History" (PDF). Chicago-Kent Law Review. 82 (3): 3–48.
  • Hughes, Charles Evans (1936) [1928]. The Supreme Court of the United States. Columbia University Press. ISBN978-0-231-08567-0.
  • McCloskey, Robert G. (2010). The American Supreme Courtroom. Revised by Sanford Levinson (fifth ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Printing. ISBN978-0-226-55686-4.
  • Nowak, John E.; Rotunda, Ronald D. (2012). Treatise on Constitutional Constabulary: Substance and Process (fifth ed.). Eagan, MN: West Thomson/Reuters. OCLC 798148265.
  • Vishneski, John Due south. (1988). "What the Court Decided in Dred Scott five. Sandford". American Journal of Legal History. 32 (4): 373–390. doi:10.2307/845743. JSTOR 845743.

Further reading [edit]

  • Dennis-Jonathan Mann & Kai Purnhagen: The Nature of Spousal relationship Citizenship between Autonomy and Dependency on (Fellow member) State Citizenship – A Comparative Analysis of the Rottmann Ruling, or: How to Avert a European Dred Scott Decision?, in: 29:iii Wisconsin International Law Journal (WILJ), (Fall 2011), pp. 484–533 (PDF).
  • Fehenbacher, Don E., The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics New York: Oxford (1978) [winner of Pulitzer Prize for History].
  • Fehrenbacher, Don E. Slavery, Constabulary, and Politics: The Dred Scott Example in Historical Perspective (1981) [abridged version of The Dred Scott Case].
  • Konig, David Thomas, Paul Finkelman, and Christopher Alan Bracey, eds. The "Dred Scott" Case: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Race and Constabulary (Ohio University Press; 2010) 272 pages; essays by scholars on the history of the case and its afterlife in American law and society.
  • Potter, David K. The Impending Crisis, 1848–1861 (1976) pp 267–96.
  • VanderVelde, Lea. Mrs. Dred Scott: A Life on Slavery's Borderland (Oxford University Printing, 2009) 480 pp.
  • Swain, Gwenyth (2004). Dred and Harriet Scott: A Family unit's Struggle for Liberty. Saint Paul, MN: Borealis Books. ISBN978-0-87351-482-eight.
  • Tushnet, Mark (2008). I Dissent: Slap-up Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Boston: Beacon Press. pp. 31–44. ISBN978-0-8070-0036-six.
  • Listen to: American Pendulum II – 🔊 Listen Now: American Pendulum Two

External links [edit]

  • Texts on Wikisource:
    • Dred Scott 5. Sandford
    • "Dred Scott Example". New International Encyclopedia. 1905.
    • "Dred Scott Example". Collier's New Encyclopedia. 1921.
  • Text of Dred Scott five. Sandford, sixty U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) is available from:Cornell Findlaw Justia Library of Congress OpenJurist Oyez (oral argument audio)
  • The Dred Scott conclusion. Opinion of Chief Justice Taney, with an introduction by Dr. J. H. Van Evrie. Also, an appendix, containing an essay on the natural history of the prognathous race of mankind, originally written for the New York Day-book, by Dr. S. A. Cartwright, of New Orleans. New York: Van Evrie, Horton & Co. 1863.
  • Principal documents and bibliography about the Dred Scott example, from the Library of Congress
  • "Dred Scott conclusion", Encyclopædia Britannica 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 17 Dec 2006. www.yowebsite.com
  • Gregory J. Wallance, "Dred Scott Determination: The Lawsuit That Started The Civil State of war", History.cyberspace, originally in Civil War Times Magazine, March/April 2006
  • Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, National Park Service
  • Infography nearly the Dred Scott Instance
  • The Dred Scott Instance Collection, Washington University in St. Louis
  • Report of the Chocolate-brown Academy Steering Committee on Slavery and Justice
  • Dred Scott case manufactures from William Lloyd Garrison's abolitionist newspaper The Liberator
  • "Supreme Court Landmark Instance Dred Scott 5. Sandford" from C-Bridge's Landmark Cases: Historic Supreme Court Decisions
  • Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Opinions of the Judges Thereof, in the Case of Dred Scott Versus John F.A. Sandford. Dec Term, 1856 via Google Books

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Posted by: tanneronsch1951.blogspot.com

0 Response to "What Is The Makeup Of The Us Supreme Court In 1857"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel