|
Dred Scott
v. Sanford
60 U.S. Reports 393 (1854)
Author: Lindsey
Facts
P (Dred Scott) is slave sold to Sanford (D)
by Emerson. Emerson took P from Missouri (slave state) to
Illinois (free state) and to Louisiana Territory (free), then
back to Missouri (slave). P argues that he becomes a free citizen
by way of his travel through Illinois and also his time in a free
territory. (He also argues that his family was free by way
of Louisiana Territory).
Procedural History
Scott won his freedom at trial court but the
Missouri Supreme Court reversed and remanded. He lost and
appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
1.
Did the Circuit Court have jurisdiction to hear the case?
a.
Article III Section 2 says that the Supreme Court has
jurisdiction in cases where there are citizens of two different
states.
b.
But, is P a citizen?
2.
If the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, was the judgment given in
error or not?
Holding
- Slaves
were not intended to be included under the word “citizens”
in the Constitution and thus can claim none of those
rights. Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri
within the meaning of the Constitution and therefore is
not entitled to sue.
- Neither
Dred Scott nor his family was made free by being carried
into Illinois.
Three issues to decide if court has
jurisdiction: (broad to narrow)
a.
Can any African American (free or slave) be a citizen?
i. Who were recognized as citizens
when the Constitution was adopted (was the general term “citizen”
in the Constitution meant to include slaves or was it just taken
as a matter of fact that slaves were property)?
ii. just answering this question
“no” would have taken care of the issue- although very
broadly
b.
Is the Missouri Compromise constitutional? Did congress
have authority to make that state free? (to see if he
becomes a citizen by way of Missouri)
i. Sanford claims that the
Compromise is unconstitutional
1.
Upper Louisiana is made free by the Missouri Compromise, but that
means if you bring your slave into Upper Louisiana, you’ll
be deprived of your property. Therefore, the Missouri
Compromise is supposedly unconstitutional under the 5th
Amendment Due Process Law. “No person shall be
deprived of life liberty or property without due process.”
2.
BUT ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse. You should
have known that the area was free. if you bring a machine
gun into NY, that gun can be taken away from you without
violating your due process law.
3.
answering just this question would have only decided the issue of
whether the family was free, because Scott has Illinois as a
claim, which had the right to be free regardless of the Missouri
Compromise
c.
What is the effect of Missouri law on the removal? Who
decides what the effect of going into a free area is? Does
Missouri law decide that? Or another state’s law?
i. Did Dred Scott become free by
being taken by owner to a place where slavery could not by law
exist (Rock Island, Illinois) and upon his return to Missouri
thus became a citizen of that state?
ii. This narrow question is at the
heart of the issue, and answering this question could have
resolved all of it. Instead they issued a broad opinion
about whether or not Africans can be citizens.
Judgment
Judgment for the defendant is reversed;
mandate issued directing the suit to be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
Reasoning
1)
Plain language
1.
In Scott the court breezed by the plain language of “we the people”
2)
Legislative history
1.
All colonies except Maine gave African-Americans less rights
(couldn’t vote)
2.
BUT if a restriction on voting means that you’re not a
citizen, then that means that women and children were not
citizens either
3)
Other constitutional provisions
1.
Two clauses that suggest slaves were meant to be property:
a.
the right to import slaves –but this was only until 1808
b.
the pledge to uphold the rights of the master and return to him
any property that might have escaped
2.
One problem with other provisions: might reflect a compromise
between two different groups and may not tell us anything
directly about the thoughts of the framers.
4)
Precedent
1.
If the Constitution intended for slaves to be citizens, why is it
that even after the drafting of the Constitution, slaves were
still treated as if they had no rights?
5)
Specific intent
1.
In Scott there was no history of debate during the Constitution
or history of debated on an amendment (these would be the best
sources). Instead, relied on what people, in general, thought at
the time.
|
