Dred Scott vs. Sanford case

Name:
Professor:
Class:
Date:
Dred Scott vs. Sanford case
Introduction
In the 1950s, the conflicts over the extension of slave trade and slavery in the western parts posed significant threats that could divide the nation. The balance between the slave states and the Free states was destroyed by the Nebraska Act of 1854, which brought major problems in Missouri. The congress was significantly divided on the issue of slavery, which influenced the Supreme Court to listen to the case of a fugitive slave who wanted to be granted his freedom. It was expected that the Supreme Court would stabilize the nation but the ruling it gave divided the nation further almost leading to a civil war. In his tenure as Chief Justice, John Marshall strongly advocated for a powerful national government. He died in 1835 and Roger B. Taney was appointed as the new Chief Justice. Roger B. Taney advocated for dual sovereignty in which the federal and state governments were foreign to each other. Dred Scott argued that stepping in the free state of Illinois made him a free man while Stanford argued that giving a slave the right to freedom deprived a property owner (a slave owner) the right to utilize property. The Chief Justice supported slavery and ruled in favor of the widow of John Emerson who was the master to Dred Scott. The decision of the court led to mixed reactions among the people in the United States and was a major factor influencing the civil war. This research paper is an analysis of Dred Scott vs. Sanford case, the contents of the case, the incidence s leading to the case, the verdict of the Supreme Court on the case, and declaration of Chief Justice Roger B that only the Whites could be the citizens of the United States.
Dred Scott vs. Sanford case
What the Case is
Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. It was a time when slavery and slave trade were allowed in the United States. A slave could be owned and sold like any other property. In addition, a person owning a slave had the right to do anything to the slave without being questioned. Slaves did not have human rights. Dred Scott was sold to John Emerson who was an army surgeon. In 1833, Dred Scott was transferred to Illinois, which was a free state. After the death of John Emerson in 1843, Dred Scott sued his widow for his freedom in the supreme court of Missouri (Supreme Court Cases 1). He argued that the free soil of Illinois made him a free person. He was defeated in the state courts and hence made a decision to sue in the local federal court. His case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court 11 years after the initial suit. The argument of Dred Scott was that when a person entered a new territory, the free state of such a territory overrides the previous status of slavery. In this regard, he claimed to be set free since he was now in the free state of Illinois. On the other hand, it was argued that depriving a person the right to property (a slave) was against the Fifth Amendment that stated that no federal or state law should limit the rights of a person to property. “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” (Stimson 84). In this case, Dred Scott was taken to be the private property of the widow of John Emerson.
Why the Case came about
The case came about because it was important to determine if a person became free upon entering a free state. In this case, it was important to determine if Dred Scott became a free person after entering Illinois, which was a free state (Kastenberg 595). In addition, it was also important to determine if a slave had the right to sue in a federal court. Dred Scott had presented his case in the state courts but he had lost. Therefore, it became important to determine if the federal courts could listen to the cases of the slaves who were mainly African-Americans.
Several constitutional issues facilitated the case. For instance, it was important to determine whether the movement of slaves from one location to another was under federal regulations. In this case, the federal court was to determine whether movement of Dred Scott to Illinois, a free state, made him free (McDorman 192). It was also important to determine if the federal laws would deny a person the right to own and control property without following the legal process. In this case, the federal law was to determine whether the widow of John Emerson would be denied the right to own her inherited property (Dred Scott). This is because slaves were owned and controlled like any other property by their masters. The case also came about because it was important to determine whether a property (a slave) could be moved away from the owner without fair compensation. In this case, the federal court had to determine whether Dred Scott would be given freedom without compensating the widow of John Emerson. The case also came about because it was important to determine whether the congress could barn slavery in a territory in the United States. In this case, the Supreme Court was to determine whether a person became a free man after stepping to a free state like Illinois. The different constitutional issues from each side of the case facilitated the case. The case was prominent because even the Chief Justice listened to it. In addition, his ruling dominated the ruling of the other justices in the panel.
Verdict of the Supreme Court
The case was presented before nine Supreme Court judges who ruled 7-2 favoring the owner of the slave. Each justice gave their own opinions to justify their positions. The argument of Taney, the chief justice dominated the others. Taney argued that African-Americans were not citizens of the United States irrespective of whether they were slaves or not. In addition, Taney argued that Scott was a property (a slave) and as such, he had no legal right to bring a case in the Supreme Court. Taney also argued that the compromise of the Missouri Court was unconstitutional because it denied the owners of properties the rights to move such properties anywhere in the United States. In this case, Taney meant that Missouri compromise denied the widow of John Emerson to move property (Dred Scott) from one place to another in the United States. This was against the Fifth Amendment that granted the citizens of the United...