Dred Scott And The Civil War

Kat Boardman 9 December 2008 US History I, Griswold You Be the Historian, Dred Scott Focus Jackdaw From the very beginning of the United States, a socially acknowledged decision to avoid the debate over slavery had always existed. As time passed, the country grew, and the Civil War approached, the slavery arguments exaggerated and accelerated by the Dred Scott case that took place in the years leading up to the war in concurrence with other major fallouts in the country. The news of the Scott case took a larger role than a simple suit for freedom that it had originally intended to be; it represented the very root of the argument between the North and South – the abolitionists and staunch slavery supporters. The Dred Scott case played a significant role in intensifying pro- and anti-slavery sentiments and sectional divisions that were becoming rapidly stratified and bitter, ultimately reaching fruition after the shocking, prejudiced Supreme Court decision that denied African Americans the right to citizenship and directly resulted in the election of Abraham Lincoln as President in 1860, which sparked the start of the Civil War. In order to fully understand the chaos that the United States’ was emerged in during the time leading up to the Civil War and throughout the progression of the Dred Scott case, retracing the steps to the underlying arguments over slavery is important. Slavery is as old as the country itself, existing during the time when the Founding Fathers constructed the Constitution. In the Constitution, slavery is not directly addressed in specific terms; The Founding Fathers decided to leave further decisions on slavery in the hands of future generations, perhaps hoping the issue would fade away and resolve itself. Oh, how wrong they were. The federal government began passing legislature in regards to prohibiting the expansion of slavery with the Northwest Ordinance in 1787 (BS1). The Congressional ruling decided that the newly acquired Northwest Territory would not allow slavery. As the country gained more land, the slavery

debate gained momentum. In 1803, the Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of the country (BS2). However, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 negated the Northwest Ordinance by deciding that new slave states could be admitted into the Union under the condition that an equal balance of slave and Free states continued to exist (BS2). The Compromise stipulated that Missouri would enter as a slave state, and Maine would enter as a free state, keeping the balance while continuing the avoid making a decisive decision. The Compromise also set a boundary at the parallel 36º30’ where slavery would be banned from all land above the line (BS2). Another Compromise took place in 1850, once again obscuring the federal stance on the expansion of slavery. The most significant, failed Compromise was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The two states looking to join the Union would vote independently on whether or not the citizens would like it to be a free or slave state. Popular sovereignty failed, when non-citizens of Kansas infiltrated the borders and influenced the voters. Violence erupted due to this chaotic conflict into a mini-Civil War within the state known as “Bleeding Kansas”. The “turbulent atmosphere” in Kansas represented that of the country at a whole, compiling an even deeper hostile environment all at the same time the Dred Scott case was taking place (BS2). Further exacerbating the pro- and anti-slavery argument and the widening gap between the North and the South was the economic settings of each side. Reliance on slave labor, increasing numbers of slaves, and growing monetary success of plantation owners grew exponentially with the 1794 invention of the Cotton Gin by Eli Whitney (BS1). In contrast, the North relied on industry such as textile mills for economic output. With the increased production of cotton from the South, the North produced more goods, reaping great profit. In the North, free persons worked for wages. Despite the differences between the economies, the North and South relied on each other to produce cotton. With growing territory in the US, some felt that free slave labor enjoyed by the plantation owners in the South threatened “wage earners” jobs (BS1).

Amidst the national turmoil, one man came to symbolize the struggle. Dred Scott was born a slave to unknown parents in the state of Virginia during the year of 1799 (BS1). His owner was Peter Blow, a married man with seven children who moved back and forth between Virginia, Alabama, and Louisiana for several years, ultimately settling in Missouri (Map). Peter Blow died in 1832, but beforehand, he sold Dred Scott to Dr. John Emerson, whose wife, Irene Emerson, would be the first person Scott would take to trial. Dr. John Emerson was an army surgeon who often moved around, crossing the borders of both free and slave states. Back and forth, the Scott's followed him along his travels. This would be the basis of Dred Scott's court case, for in 1824 Missouri courts came to the Winny v. Whitesides decision, which declared “once free, always free.” Under Missouri law, “a person who felt he/she was held in slavery illegally had a right to sue for his/her freedom” (BS3). This would be an important legal precedent in the years leading up to the Dred Scott case. During a stay in Fort Snelling in 1836, in the free Wisconsin territory that is now Minnesota, Dred Scott legally married Harriet Robinson, both as free persons in the current state they inhabited. Dr. Emerson died the year of 1843; rendering Irene Emerson owner of the Scott’s (Doc1a). Under ownership of both Peter Blow and Dr. Emerson, Dred Scott frequently traveled over the boarders of slave states into Free states, raising the question of whether or not this applied as “once free, always free.” The Scott’s sued Irene Emerson in 1846 (doc1a). St. Louis Circuit Courts first heard from the Scott's lawyer on April 6, 1847 when they filed their separate petitions for freedom based on the aforementioned precedent of “once free, always free”. Although the Scott case was originally thrown out on a “technicality” – probably because the justices did not want to deal with it – the case was re-tried in 1850. In the end, the Circuit Court decision ruled that the “once free, always free” precedent did, indeed, apply to the Scott’s, therefore rendering them as free persons. Judge John Krum had stated that Dred Scott did have the right to sue in a court of law, allowing the case to take place (Doc1a).

Additionally, Scott would not have had the opportunity to take his suit as far as he did without the financial contributions and support of members of the abolitionist community (Doc1b). Peter Blow’s son-in-law, Joseph Charless, officially took responsibility in a St. Louis Circuit Court document that stated Charless “held and firmly bound to pay all costs that may be adjudged against the said Dred Scott in any suit instituted by him for his freedom…” (Doc1b). This shows the widespread interest in the Scott trial and the abolitionists’ eagerness to bring the case to trial to expose the country to the immorality of slavery. In the North, previously neutral citizens began to take a stance against slavery as a direct result of the Scott case in the media as it continued to progress through the state and federal court systems. Irene Emerson appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri which, at the time, was unfortunately made up of a majority of justices who “were waiting for a chance to make a strong statement in favor of slave owners” (BS3). The case was also the first time that the idea of Congressional authority to limit the expansion of slavery was brought into question (BS3). The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the Scotts were not free. The decision overturned “once free, always free”, using the logic that since the Scott’s were currently in Missouri, a slave state, they were required to live by Missouri law (BS3). Without a doubt, growing tensions between the North and South influenced the decisions of the Missouri justices and the decision itself deepened the dangerous hostilities. Despite the crushing decision, the Scott case was far from over. Irene Emerson’s brother, John Sanford, a New York state resident, claimed ownership of the Scott’s (BS3). Since the suit crossed state lines, it became a matter of the federal courts. In 1854, the same year as “Bleeding Kansas”, the Federal Circuit Court ruled that the Scott’s were property of John Sanford (BS3). The significance of “Bleeding Kansas” simultaneously taking place is that it caused Missouri slave owners to fear that slaves would escape to Kansas if Kansas were ruled a free state. The country was crumbling, going down the inevitable path to slavery with Dred Scott as the poster boy for both sides.

Scott’s attorney was resilient and determined. He appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. By this time, the Dred Scott case was nationally recognized. The continuation of Scott’s suits flared pro-slavery feelings and aroused abolitionists advocates further and further. By this time, the clear indecisiveness of state and federal courts to come to an agreement on the validity of Dred Scott’s argument showed an inherent weakness in the judicial system, especially in regards to interpreting the Constitution indiscriminately. The Federal Supreme Court would make a final, brutal decision in an attempt to, once and for all, put the slavery debate to rest. During the 1850s, the Supreme Court was comprised of nine noteworthy justices; the makeup of the Court would be the decisive factor. Seven of the nine justices had been appointed to the Supreme Court by Presidents that supported slavery, and five of the nine justices were slave owners themselves, already exhibiting a pro-slavery majority in a supposedly neutral court (BS4). Clearly, the justices that supported slavery already had an agenda in regards to the decision they would come to before the case actually began. The arguments in the case of Scott v. Sandford took place in 1857 (BS3). The questions for the justices to contemplate were difficult and relied heavily on personal interpretations of the Constitution. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision that Scott was legally a slave because (1) African Americans were not citizens; (2) since he had been living in Missouri, it was the jurisdiction of the Missouri courts and laws decided Scott’s status as a slave; and (3) Congress did not have the right to and therefore could no longer limit the expansion of slavery (BS4). The majority of justice’s perceived slaves as “property” and, under the Fifth Amendment, property are adamantly, making the prohibition of expanding slavery unconstitutional. The ruling sent shockwaves throughout the country as if it had been struck by an earthquake that broke the Richter scale. Southern slave owners were pleased, of course, but anti-slavery campaigners – which had grown in numbers significantly due to the publicized attention of the Scott case – were furious and refused to accept this decision.

The Majority opinion was expressed by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. His statement oozes preexisting racism embedded deeply in the Chief Justices values and views of the law. In regard to African Americans as citizens, he stated that: We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges.

They were at that time considered as a

subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race... (Doc2) The seven justices who ruled in the majority felt that they had resolved the issue of slavery once and for all despite the distorted reasoning of African Americans as an inferior race. The only two dissenting justices were John McLean of Ohio and Benjamin Curtis of Massachusetts. In Justice Curtis’ dissenting opinion, he argued that, at the time the Constitution was written, free states had existed and in those states, African Americans did have rights and were intended to be included in the “body of citizens” spoken of in the Constitution. “I can find nothing in the Constitution….which deprives of their citizens any class of persons who were citizens of the US at the time of its adoption…” (Doc2). Furthermore, Curtis argued that Congress did have the right to govern territories because such territories were not yet states and therefore not protected under the Constitution. The political cartoon “The Political Quadrille, Music by Dred Scott,” published in 1860, creatively and accurately illustrates the widespread, growing influence of the Scott decision. The artist depicts the resulting split of the Democratic Party as a result of the Dred Scott case (Doc8). The cartoon shows a square dance with four couples in each corner while Dred Scott is located in the center, playing the violin. Scott is the central character in the cartoon, as all the other characters are around his central location, symbolizing how his case was the very center of controversy and the debates among Presidential candidates. The couples square-dancing represent the several Presidential candidates and each candidates square-dancing partners represented what the Party stood for. The cartoon also explains

the divisions that occurred within the Democratic Party as a result of the Dred Scott case. The Democratic Party became divided into three separate divisions, weakening the Party overall. The cartoon accurately shows the bedlam that was steadily rising and splitting the country and how Scott was utilized as the poster boy and scapegoat symbolically representing the arguments for all corners of the slavery debate. Beyond the political cartoon, The Scott case was widely publicized in both the North and South. Perspectives from both sides were made abundantly clear. The Richmond Enquirer, a Southern publication, issued an article on March 15, 1857 which basically summarized Southern sentiments (Doc3). The authors of article placed blame on the federal governments Compromises for the growing distress, and claimed that the North was deliberately trying to threaten the Southern institutions. The author even stated that “the South will continue to be ready for war.” The belief that the South has done nothing wrong and were clearly victimized was the message, and the Northern bullies refused to stop the “taunting and jeering” of Southerners (Doc 3). In the North, a few examples of publications regarding the Dred Scott case can be seen. “A Visit to Dred Scott,” an interview in Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper depicts a time when a journalist from New York traveled to the Scott’s family home in hopes of producing a portrait of Scott accompanying an interview with him (Doc6). Although this gesture was quite an honor, Dred failed to see it as such. Scott was very reluctant to allow a portrait to be taken of him and refused to participate. Scott’s lawyer even sent Dred a letter trying to persuade him to cooperate, saying “it was to his advantage to have his picture taken…” and published in the newspaper (Doc6). Scott’s disinclination to participate with the newspaper portrait and the attitude expressed in the paper show that Scott was highly untrusting of white Americans, even those who supported him, and that perhaps he was uncomfortable with his highly recognized status in the media. The article and an accompanying portrait were eventually published in the June 27, 1857 issue (Doc6). Also in 1857, infuriated Northern supporters responded to the Supreme Court ruling by

advertising a public meeting via a poster that invited all to attend “…to consider the atrocious decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case and other outrages the colored people are subject to…” (Doc5). In May 1857, famous abolitionist Frederick Douglas delivered a speech that bitterly criticized the “infamous decision of the slave-holding wing of the Supreme Court…I have no fear that the national conscience will be put to sleep by such an open, glaring, and scandalous tissue of lies…” (Doc4). Passionate opinions expressed by both sides garnered further attention and agitation. The country was certainly one step away from engaging in Civil War. In Freeport, Illinois on August 27, 1858, Presidential Debates between Republican Lincoln and Democrat Douglas marked a major shift in the future of the country. The Dred Scott case had weakened the Democratic Party, allowing Lincoln to step in and work his way under the skin of Democratic candidates. Lincoln addressed the Scott case in this decisive debate. At one point, Lincoln deliberately set a trap that would require Douglas to answer questions in regards to his support of popular sovereignty in regards to the Dred Scott decision, trapping Douglas in a corner as he vocalized a response that would inescapably anger Northerners and infuriate Southerners alike (Doc7). Lincoln collected national attention thanks to his utilization of the symbolic meaning of Dred Scott, and his success in the debate, paired with the diluted Democratic Party, led to the election of Lincoln as President. By this time, Dred Scott had been a freed despite the rulings that he remains a slave, and soon after his freedom, he died. He was freed when Irene Emerson’s new husband Dr. Calvin Chaffee, an abolitionist, transferred ownership of Scott back to the Blow family as a strategic way to sidestep the law and aid Scott’s freedom; upon transfer to the Blow family, they freed Scott in Missouri in May of 1957 (Doc6). By that time, Dr. Chaffee had known all about the Scott case because of the national attention it created, and was legally freed by the Blow family in Missouri in May of 1957 (Doc6). Sadly, Dred Scott died September 17, 1858 of tuberculosis (BS4). Sadly, Scott died long before he

could see the repercussions of his legal and moral battle and the undeniable, deeply imprinted legacy it left on the US and the eventual emancipation of African Americans. The Dred Scott case put slavery into the limelight and made it an intensely growing national problem, rather than an unspoken of issue that was often ignored or sidestepped through Compromises or inconsistent court decisions. The Dred Scott case was a major factor in intensifying pro- and antislavery sentiments and sectional divisions, and permanently split the country after the shocking, prejudiced Supreme Court decision that directly resulted in Abraham Lincoln becoming elected President and starting the Civil War.

Sources Broadsheet Essay. Jackdaw: Dred Scott Decision. Amawalk, NY: Jackdaw Publications, 2004; pages 1-8. Documents 1a: “St. Louis Circuit documents – Dred Scott’s petition to sue for his freedom and Judge John M. Krum’s ruling.” Jackdaw: Dred Scott Decision. Amawalk, NY: Jackdaw Publications, 2004. Documents 1b: “St Louis Circuit documents – Bond for costs in case of Dred Scott.” Documents 2: “Cover sheet summarizing the disposition of the United States Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford and excerpts from the opinions of Chief Justices Roger B. Taney and Bejamin R. Curtis. Documents 3: Editorial from Richmond, Virginia, Enquirer. Documents 4: “Excerpt from a speech by Frederick Douglass, delivered May 1857.” Documents 5: “Broadsheet Announcing an abolitionist meeting, 1857.” Documents 6: “‘A Visit to Dred Scott,’ Frank Leslie’s Illustrated newspaper, June 27. 1857. Documents 7: “Excerpt from the Lincoln/Douglas debate, Freeport, Illinois, August 27, 1858.” Documents 8: “The Political Quadrille, Music by Dred Scott 1860.” Map of the Missouri Compromise. Jackdaw: Dred Scott Decision. Amawalk, NY: Jackdaw Publications, 2004.