Presidents and the Supreme Court: The Dred Scott Decision
The US Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford is considered by many legal historians to be the worst decision ever rendered by the court. Even the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in his history of the court, expressed the opinion that this was so. Today, it would seem very unethical for a president to attempt to influence the Supreme Court of the United States about a forthcoming decision, especially one with significant political consequences. Yet that seems to be what happened on March 6, 1857 when the Supreme Court handed down it's decision in the Dred Scott case. The case held that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the territories of the United States, and that people of African descent (both slave and free) were not protected by the Constitution and were not U.S. citizens. Fortunately, this decision had lost all authority since the passage of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia sometime between 1795 and 1800. In 1820, he accompanied his owner, Peter Blow, to Missouri. In 1832, Blow died and the next year U.S. Army Surgeon Dr. John Emerson purchased Scott. After purchasing Scott, Emerson took him to Fort Armstrong, which was located in Illinois, a free state which prohibited slavery in its constitution. Scott remained there until 1836, when Scott was again relocated. This time he was taken to Fort Snelling, which was located in part of the Wisconsin territory, where slavery was “forever prohibited” by United State Congress under the Missouri Compromise. This provided Scott with a legitimate basis on which to claim his freedom in court, although Scott did not act on this opportunity.
In 1837, the Army ordered Emerson to Jefferson Barracks Military Post, south of St. Louis, Missouri. Emerson left Scott and Scott's wife Harriet at Fort Snelling, where Emerson rented them out for profit. By hiring Scott out in a free state, Emerson was effectively bringing the institution of slavery into a free state, which was a direct violation of the Missouri Compromise, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Wisconsin Enabling Act.
Before the end of the year, the Army reassigned Emerson to Fort Jessup, Louisiana. Emerson then sent for Scott and Harriet, who proceeded to Louisiana to serve their master and his wife. While en route to Louisiana, Scott's daughter Eliza was born on a steamboat underway along the Mississippi River between the Iowa Territory and Illinois. Toward the end of 1838, the Army again assigned Emerson to Fort Snelling. By 1840, Emerson's wife, Scott, and Harriet returned to St. Louis while Emerson served in the Seminole War. While in St. Louis, they were once again hired out and Emerson was once again breaking federal law. In 1842, Emerson left the Army. He died in the Iowa Territory in 1843. His widow Eliza inherited his estate, including Scott. For three years after Emerson’s death, the Scotts continued to work as hired slaves. In 1846, Scott attempted to purchase his and his family’s freedom, but Eliza Irene Emerson refused, prompting Scott to sue for his freedom.
In 1846, Scott attempted to purchase his and his family's freedom from Irene Emerson, but she refused. With the help of abolitionist legal advisers, Scott decided to sue Emerson for his freedom in a Missouri court in 1846. Scott received financial assistance for his case from the family of his previous owner, Peter Blow. Blow's daughter Charlotte was married to Joseph Charless, an officer at the Bank of Missouri. With help from Charless, Scott was able to hire the bank's attorney, Samuel Mansfield Bay, for his trial. Scott's lawyers argued that his residence in free territories required his emancipation.
The case had been assigned to Judge Alexander Hamilton, who was generally sympathetic to slave freedom suits. But in June 1847, Scott lost his case due on a technicality. The could held that Scott had not proven that he was actually enslaved by Irene Emerson. In December 1847, Judge Hamilton granted Scott a new trial. Due to a major fire and a cholera epidemic, the new trial did not begin until January 1850. While the case awaited trial, Scott and his family were placed in the custody of the St. Louis County Sheriff, who continued to lease out the services of Scott and his family. The proceeds were held in escrow, to be paid to Emerson or Scott depending on wgo won the case.
In the 1850 trial, the jury found in favor of Scott and his family. Emerson appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri, even though by this time she had moved to Massachusetts and transferred ownership of Scott to her brother, John F. A. Sanford. In November 1852, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the Scotts were still legally slaves and that they should have sued for freedom while living in a free state. In his reasons for judgement, Chief Justice William Scott wrote:
"Times are not now as they were when the former decisions on this subject were made. Since then not only individuals but States have been possessed with a dark and fell spirit in relation to slavery, whose gratification is sought in the pursuit of measures, whose inevitable consequences must be the overthrow and destruction of our government. Under such circumstances it does not behoove the State of Missouri to show the least countenance to any measure which might gratify this spirit. She is willing to assume her full responsibility for the existence of slavery within her limits, nor does she seek to share or divide it with others."
Scott appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 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. After hearing argument the court reserved its decision. It handed down the decision just two days after the inauguration of President James Buchanan. Each of the concurring and dissenting Justices filing separate opinions. By a 7-2 majority the court held that Dred Scott had no standing to sue for his freedom because Scott, and all people of African descent for that matter, were found not to be citizens of the United States. The Court's majority ruled that Scott's "sojourn" of two years to Illinois and the Northwest Territory did not make him free once he returned to Missouri. They held that as a slave, Scott was excluded from United States citizenship and could not, therefore, bring suit. According to the majority opinion of the Court, African-Americans had not been part of the "sovereign people" who made the Constitution. They also held that Congress never had the right to prohibit slavery in any territory and that any ban on slavery was a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibited denying property rights without due process of law. As a result, the court said that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.
The decision caused considerable debate and controversy. It was later discovered that after the Supreme Court had heard arguments in the case but before it had issued a ruling, President-elect James Buchanan had written a letter to his friend, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice John Catron, asking whether the case would be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court before his inauguration in March 1857. Buchanan hoped the decision would quell unrest in the country over the slavery issue by issuing a ruling that put the future of slavery beyond the realm of political debate.
Buchanan also lobbied Associate Justice Robert Cooper Grier, a Northerner, to join the Southern majority to prevent the appearance that the decision was made along sectional lines. This would be considered highly unethical today. Even under the more lenient standards of that century, Buchanan's applying such political pressure to a member of a sitting court would have been seen as improper. Republicans claimed that on the day of Buchanan's inauguration, Chief Justice Taney had whispered in Buchanan's ear prior to Buchanan's declaring, in his inaugural address, that the slavery question would "be speedily and finally settled" by the Supreme Court.
Here is what Buchanan's biographer Philip S. Klein wrote about this incident in his 1962 biography of Buchanan called President James Buchanan: A Biography at page 269:
Buchanan had expected to defer the second great task, dealing with slavery, until after the inauguration. But during February he was drawn into a correspondence which gave him hope that part of the problem might be solved at a stroke. While in Washington he learned that the Supreme Court was nearly ready to bring in a decision on the Dred Scott case. Eager to have the backing of the court, he wrote to Justices John Catron and Robert Grier about the wisdom of having the Supreme Court issue a through expository opinion on the power of Congress over slavery in the territories. Buchanan knew what the majority decision would be - that Scott had no right to sue because he was not a citizen - and he knew that two dissenting justices would prepare a statement supporting their views. Should not the majority do likewise, and make explicit that Congress had no power over slavery in the territories; therefore the Missiouri Compromise had been unconstitutional? Buchanan strongly urged this action as the best possible way to get the slavery debate out of Congress and settle once and for all the sectional contention. If the country was so far gone that it would attack the Supreme Court, then the union was already cracked beyond repair.
The sons of Peter Blow, Scott's first owner, purchased emancipation for Scott and his family on May 26, 1857. This soon became national news and celebrated in northern cities. Scott worked in a hotel in St. Louis, where he was considered a local celebrity. He died of tuberculosis only eighteen months later, on November 7, 1858. His wife Harriet died on June 17, 1876.
Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia sometime between 1795 and 1800. In 1820, he accompanied his owner, Peter Blow, to Missouri. In 1832, Blow died and the next year U.S. Army Surgeon Dr. John Emerson purchased Scott. After purchasing Scott, Emerson took him to Fort Armstrong, which was located in Illinois, a free state which prohibited slavery in its constitution. Scott remained there until 1836, when Scott was again relocated. This time he was taken to Fort Snelling, which was located in part of the Wisconsin territory, where slavery was “forever prohibited” by United State Congress under the Missouri Compromise. This provided Scott with a legitimate basis on which to claim his freedom in court, although Scott did not act on this opportunity.
In 1837, the Army ordered Emerson to Jefferson Barracks Military Post, south of St. Louis, Missouri. Emerson left Scott and Scott's wife Harriet at Fort Snelling, where Emerson rented them out for profit. By hiring Scott out in a free state, Emerson was effectively bringing the institution of slavery into a free state, which was a direct violation of the Missouri Compromise, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Wisconsin Enabling Act.
Before the end of the year, the Army reassigned Emerson to Fort Jessup, Louisiana. Emerson then sent for Scott and Harriet, who proceeded to Louisiana to serve their master and his wife. While en route to Louisiana, Scott's daughter Eliza was born on a steamboat underway along the Mississippi River between the Iowa Territory and Illinois. Toward the end of 1838, the Army again assigned Emerson to Fort Snelling. By 1840, Emerson's wife, Scott, and Harriet returned to St. Louis while Emerson served in the Seminole War. While in St. Louis, they were once again hired out and Emerson was once again breaking federal law. In 1842, Emerson left the Army. He died in the Iowa Territory in 1843. His widow Eliza inherited his estate, including Scott. For three years after Emerson’s death, the Scotts continued to work as hired slaves. In 1846, Scott attempted to purchase his and his family’s freedom, but Eliza Irene Emerson refused, prompting Scott to sue for his freedom.
In 1846, Scott attempted to purchase his and his family's freedom from Irene Emerson, but she refused. With the help of abolitionist legal advisers, Scott decided to sue Emerson for his freedom in a Missouri court in 1846. Scott received financial assistance for his case from the family of his previous owner, Peter Blow. Blow's daughter Charlotte was married to Joseph Charless, an officer at the Bank of Missouri. With help from Charless, Scott was able to hire the bank's attorney, Samuel Mansfield Bay, for his trial. Scott's lawyers argued that his residence in free territories required his emancipation.
The case had been assigned to Judge Alexander Hamilton, who was generally sympathetic to slave freedom suits. But in June 1847, Scott lost his case due on a technicality. The could held that Scott had not proven that he was actually enslaved by Irene Emerson. In December 1847, Judge Hamilton granted Scott a new trial. Due to a major fire and a cholera epidemic, the new trial did not begin until January 1850. While the case awaited trial, Scott and his family were placed in the custody of the St. Louis County Sheriff, who continued to lease out the services of Scott and his family. The proceeds were held in escrow, to be paid to Emerson or Scott depending on wgo won the case.
In the 1850 trial, the jury found in favor of Scott and his family. Emerson appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri, even though by this time she had moved to Massachusetts and transferred ownership of Scott to her brother, John F. A. Sanford. In November 1852, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the Scotts were still legally slaves and that they should have sued for freedom while living in a free state. In his reasons for judgement, Chief Justice William Scott wrote:
"Times are not now as they were when the former decisions on this subject were made. Since then not only individuals but States have been possessed with a dark and fell spirit in relation to slavery, whose gratification is sought in the pursuit of measures, whose inevitable consequences must be the overthrow and destruction of our government. Under such circumstances it does not behoove the State of Missouri to show the least countenance to any measure which might gratify this spirit. She is willing to assume her full responsibility for the existence of slavery within her limits, nor does she seek to share or divide it with others."
Scott appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 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. After hearing argument the court reserved its decision. It handed down the decision just two days after the inauguration of President James Buchanan. Each of the concurring and dissenting Justices filing separate opinions. By a 7-2 majority the court held that Dred Scott had no standing to sue for his freedom because Scott, and all people of African descent for that matter, were found not to be citizens of the United States. The Court's majority ruled that Scott's "sojourn" of two years to Illinois and the Northwest Territory did not make him free once he returned to Missouri. They held that as a slave, Scott was excluded from United States citizenship and could not, therefore, bring suit. According to the majority opinion of the Court, African-Americans had not been part of the "sovereign people" who made the Constitution. They also held that Congress never had the right to prohibit slavery in any territory and that any ban on slavery was a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibited denying property rights without due process of law. As a result, the court said that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.
The decision caused considerable debate and controversy. It was later discovered that after the Supreme Court had heard arguments in the case but before it had issued a ruling, President-elect James Buchanan had written a letter to his friend, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice John Catron, asking whether the case would be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court before his inauguration in March 1857. Buchanan hoped the decision would quell unrest in the country over the slavery issue by issuing a ruling that put the future of slavery beyond the realm of political debate.
Buchanan also lobbied Associate Justice Robert Cooper Grier, a Northerner, to join the Southern majority to prevent the appearance that the decision was made along sectional lines. This would be considered highly unethical today. Even under the more lenient standards of that century, Buchanan's applying such political pressure to a member of a sitting court would have been seen as improper. Republicans claimed that on the day of Buchanan's inauguration, Chief Justice Taney had whispered in Buchanan's ear prior to Buchanan's declaring, in his inaugural address, that the slavery question would "be speedily and finally settled" by the Supreme Court.
Here is what Buchanan's biographer Philip S. Klein wrote about this incident in his 1962 biography of Buchanan called President James Buchanan: A Biography at page 269:
Buchanan had expected to defer the second great task, dealing with slavery, until after the inauguration. But during February he was drawn into a correspondence which gave him hope that part of the problem might be solved at a stroke. While in Washington he learned that the Supreme Court was nearly ready to bring in a decision on the Dred Scott case. Eager to have the backing of the court, he wrote to Justices John Catron and Robert Grier about the wisdom of having the Supreme Court issue a through expository opinion on the power of Congress over slavery in the territories. Buchanan knew what the majority decision would be - that Scott had no right to sue because he was not a citizen - and he knew that two dissenting justices would prepare a statement supporting their views. Should not the majority do likewise, and make explicit that Congress had no power over slavery in the territories; therefore the Missiouri Compromise had been unconstitutional? Buchanan strongly urged this action as the best possible way to get the slavery debate out of Congress and settle once and for all the sectional contention. If the country was so far gone that it would attack the Supreme Court, then the union was already cracked beyond repair.
The sons of Peter Blow, Scott's first owner, purchased emancipation for Scott and his family on May 26, 1857. This soon became national news and celebrated in northern cities. Scott worked in a hotel in St. Louis, where he was considered a local celebrity. He died of tuberculosis only eighteen months later, on November 7, 1858. His wife Harriet died on June 17, 1876.