Dred Scott v. Sandford
| Dred Scott versus Sandford | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Negotiates 11-14th February 1856 / 15.-18. February 1857 |
||||
| Decided March 6, 1857 |
||||
|
||||
| facts | ||||
| Application by a black man to be an American citizen for release from slavery | ||||
| decision | ||||
| Blacks, whether slaves or not, cannot become citizens of the United States. The plaintiff thus lacks the admissibility requirement for an action. The plaintiff will not be released from slavery after traveling through areas that have abolished slavery, otherwise it would violate the property rights of its owner. | ||||
| occupation | ||||
|
||||
| Positions | ||||
|
||||
| Applied Law | ||||
| United States Constitution , 5th Amendment ; Missouri Compromise | ||||
| Repealed by | ||||
| 13th , 14th, and 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Civil Rights Act of 1866 (passed 1870) | ||||
| reaction | ||||
|
Abolish slavery through the passing of the 13th , 14th and 15th amendments to the United States Constitution, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (passed 1870) after the end of the American Civil War |
Dred Scott versus Sandford was a case ofprinciplebefore the Supreme Court of the United States in 1856/57, the outcome of which is considered to be one of the main causes of the American Civil War .
In the process, the slave Dred Scott tried to enforce his freedom on the grounds that he had temporarily lived in slave-free states and territories of the USA. The judgment proclaimed in 1857 by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney , however, generally denied the civil rights of African-Americans and strengthened the rights of slave owners. In fact, it declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, which, with the exception of Missouri, provided for a ban on slavery in all areas north of the line at latitude 36 ° 30 'north . The ruling exacerbated the conflict between the northern states, which saw themselves being put on the defensive, and the slave-holding southern states. After the Civil War, the 13th , 14th, and 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (passed in 1870) abolished slavery and overturned the 1857 judgment.
In US historiography, Scott v. Sandford even before Plessy v. Ferguson or Korematsu v. United States hailed as the world's worst Supreme Court ruling, giving the court a bad name for nearly a century.
background
Dred Scott was an African-American who was born a slave in Virginia around 1800 and belonged to Peter Blow's family. In 1830 the family moved with Scott from Alabama to St. Louis , Missouri . After Peter Blow's death in 1832, the Dred Scott family sold to Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon in the American Army. In 1833 Emerson was transferred from St. Louis and served for over two years at Fort Armstrong , Illinois , whose constitution had already abolished slavery. In 1836 he was transferred to Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin Territory (now Minnesota ), which was also considered "free" according to the Missouri Compromise . During this time Scott married Harriet Robinson, a slave of Officer William B. Taliaferro, which he would not have been able to do in the slave-holding southern states .
In 1837 Emerson was transferred back to St. Louis and from there to Fort Jesup , Louisiana . He left Scott with his wife in the Wisconsin Territory for a few months and rented him out there, although the Missouri Compromise forbade slavery in that territory. In 1838 Emerson married Eliza Irene Sanford at Fort Jesup , whose nickname was Irene. In 1838 Emerson was transferred back to Fort Snelling, where the Scotts accompanied him. On the way there, Harriet Scott gave birth to her first daughter, Eliza, north of Missouri in 'free' territory on a steamboat.
In 1840 Emerson was transferred to Florida to serve in the Seminole War . On the way there, Emerson left his wife and the Scotts in St. Louis. After his discharge from the Army in 1842, he settled in Davenport , Iowa . When Emerson died in December 1843, his fortune, including the Scotts and their two daughters, passed to his widow Irene. Alexander Sanford, Irene's father, was appointed administrator of the Emerson, Missouri estate. Irene returned to St. Louis and the Scotts continued to be rented out to other people. For example, in March 1846, Samuel Russell enlisted her services. Three years after Emerson's death, Scott tried unsuccessfully to buy himself out of the widow. He then filed a lawsuit in the Missouri courts in April 1846 with the aim of being released from slavery.
Procedure
State level
Precedents
When Scott filed his lawsuit in 1846, the precedented doctrine was that a slave was entitled to liberty if he had resided with the consent of his owner in a state or territory where slavery was prohibited. Even if the slave had voluntarily returned to Missouri, this did not renew his position as a slave after his emancipation and the owner had forfeited the right to the slave (according to the principle “once free, always free”). Important precedents that were to become important in Scott's passage through the courts were:
- Winny v. Phebe Whitesides (1824): The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that a person who was held as a slave in Illinois, a free state, and then brought to Missouri was entitled to freedom. The owner had forfeited his right to the slave by staying in a free state and not renewed it by returning to Missouri.
- John Merry v. Tiffin and Menard (1827): The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that a slave was emancipated by residing in areas where slavery was prohibited by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
- Nat v. Stephen Ruddle (1834): Nat's request for freedom was rejected by the Missouri Supreme Court for having gone to Illinois without the consent of its owner. In the judgment, however, the court stressed that he would have gained his freedom had he had the consent of his owner.
- Rachael v. Walker (1837): Rachael, the slave of an army officer, had accompanied her owner from St. Louis to Fort Snelling, spent a few years there and then returned with him to St. Louis. Because of her stay at Fort Snelling, she sued for freedom and was right. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled: “An officer of the US Army, who takes his slaves to a military post, within the territory wherein slavery is prohibited, and retains her several years in attendance on himself and family, forfeits his property in such slave by virtue of the ordinance of 1787. ”(An officer in the US Army who takes his slave to a military post in a territory where slavery is prohibited and keeps the slave there for several years in his service and his family, forfeited the right to these slaves based on the Ordinance of 1787).
St. Louis Circuit Court
On April 6, 1846, both Dred Scott and Harriet Scott filed a petition in the St. Louis Circuit Court to sue Irene Emerson. The Missouri Statute of 1845 stated that slaves who believed they had a legitimate claim to liberty could petition a circuit court in Missouri to sue their owners. If the judge agreed, the slave could sue in court. In their submissions, the Scotts asked to be allowed to sue Irene Emerson for 'trespass for false imprisonment'. On the same day, Judge John M. Krum approved their submission. Since Dred Scott v. Irene Emerson and Harriet Scott v. Irene Emerson was practically the same procedure, it was agreed that only Dred Scott v. Irene Emerson was to be tried and the verdict in his case also applied to Harriet. For the duration of the procedure, Scott was handed over to the sheriff, who should continue to rent him out and manage the profits from it on a temporary basis.
On June 30, 1847, under the presidency of Judge Alexander Hamilton, the first hearing in the St. Louis Circuit Court took place. Scott had to produce evidence of his right to liberty. Catherine Anderson testified that she received Scott from Dr. Emerson had been hired at Fort Snelling for two to three months, and that Scott had been hired to other people while Emerson was at Fort Jesup. Thus it was proven that Dr. Emerson kept Scott as slaves in a free territory. Other witnesses confirmed the same fact for Illinois, making Scott a slave in a free state. Since the lawsuit was directed against Irene Emerson and not against her deceased husband, it now had to be proven that Irene Emerson was the owner of Dred Scott. The Scott side called Samuel Russell, who Scott had hired in March 1846 from Irene Emerson and paid her father, Alexander Sanford, to take the stand. However, cross-examination by the defense revealed that it was not Samuell Russell who had hired, but his wife Scott. Samuel Russell paid Alexander Sanford, but didn't know if the money actually went to Irene Emerson. So he could only confirm by hearsay that Irene Emerson was the owner of Scott, which in the eyes of the defense was not legal evidence. Judge Hamilton instructed the jurors that Russell's statement should therefore not be heeded. The jury acquitted Irene Emerson.
Scott's lawyers then called for a retrial because it was not the facts that spoke against Scott, but a formality that could be resolved by Mrs. Russell's appeal to the stand. Judge Hamilton granted Scott a retrial on December 2, 1847. Emerson appealed against this to the Missouri Supreme Court ( Irene Emerson v. Dred Scott ). It was not about Scott's freedom, but about the fact that a lower authority had awarded Scott a new trial. The Missouri Supreme Court dismissed Emerson's appeal. As a result, the second hearing in the Scott v. Emerson at St. Louis Circuit Court. Adeline Russell was called to the witness stand to prove Irene Emerson owned Scott. This testified that she had hired Scott from Mrs. Emerson. Thus it was proved that Mrs. Emerson was the owner. The defense then argued that Irene Emerson had the right to rent Scott because he was under US Army jurisdiction under military law during his time at Fort Snelling and Fort Armstrong and was never under civil law in open territories. (The Emerson side completely ignored the precedent of Rachael v. Walker .) The jury decided that "the defendant is guilty of manner and form as in the plaintiff's declaration alleged" (the defendant is guilty as per the indictment). Judge Hamilton ordered Scott and his family to be released. For the purposes of the law, he had been a free man since his stay at Fort Armstrong in 1833. At no point was the political dispute over the slavery issue included in the Circuit Court proceedings. It was all about Scott's freedom, which was granted to him in accordance with the precedents.
Missouri State Supreme Court
Following the guilty verdict and after a new Circuit Court trial was denied, Emerson appealed to the Missouri State Supreme Court . Emerson moved to Massachusetts and married Dr. Calvin C. Chaffee , an abolitionist while her father continued to administer the Missouri estate. On March 8, 1850, both sides made their submissions. Before the Missouri Supreme Court, Emerson promised a chance of success because in Nat v. Stephen Ruddle had decided that staying without the owner's consent would not confer freedom and Dr. Emerson had gone to the free territories only because of the army, and reiterated the military jurisdiction argument. Scott's attorney referred to the St. Louis Circuit Court decision and argued with reference to Rachael V. Walker , the question of military jurisdiction is irrelevant. In addition, Dr. Emerson voluntarily left the Scotts at Fort Snelling when he went to Fort Jesup.
At that point the case became political. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton had spoken out against the Jackson Resolutions of 1847 that gave the United States Congress no power to ban slavery in the Territories. This resulted in a movement in Missouri to depose Benton. Two of Benton's opponents were William Barclay Napton and William Scott. Napton was one of the three current judges on the Missouri Supreme Court (the other two were John F. Ryland and James Harvey Birch ), with Scott one of his predecessors. Napton and Scott agreed, at the earliest opportunity, to revise decisions based on the validity and binding force of the Northwest Ordinance. Ryland was against it, Birch wanted to go further and revise decisions that banned slavery in the Territories due to the Missouri Compromise.
On October 25, 1850, the Missouri Supreme Court convened in St. Louis. At that point it became clear that Benton would not be re-elected. Napton then convinced Birch that one needn't go so far as to overturn the Missouri Compromise. Ryland also changed his mind and now wanted to agree. Thus, one would revise all Missouri precedents that the Northwest Ordinance considered binding. Napton began writing the verdict. While he was waiting for papers to be quoted, the Missouri Supreme Court justices were re-elected. In August 1851, the Scott v. Emerson to the newly elected Missouri Supreme Court, presided over by Hamilton Rowan Gamble , Ryland, and the very same William Scott who had agreed with Napton to overthrow the Northwest Ordinance.
In November 1851, the Missouri Supreme Court re-examined the case. Scott submitted the same submission as he did in 1850, Emerson a belated submission in which she slightly altered her reasoning. She now doubted whether the Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise were applicable. In doing so, however, she did not question the constitutionality, but rather the principle of "once free, always free". As a precedent they referred to Strader v. Graham , who had been ruled by the United States Supreme Court in 1851 , stating that the law of the state in which the slave was located, not that of any state in which he was located, applied. Then on March 22, 1852, the Missouri Supreme Court announced its decision in the Scott v. Emerson with. The verdict was written by William Scott, Ryland wrote a concurring opinion, and Gamble a dissenting opinion. The Missouri Supreme Court had ruled that the law in Missouri did not have to bow to the law of other states if this conflicted with the interests of Missouri ("No state is bound to carry into effect enactments conceived in a spirit hostile to that which pervades her own laws "). With a 2: 1 decision, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned all precedents, stating that "the voluntary removal of a slave, by his master, to a State, Territory, or Country, in which slavery is prohibited, with a view to a residence there, does not entitle the slave to sue for his freedom, in the courts of this State "(voluntary removal of a slave by his owner into a state, a territory or a country in which slavery is prohibited with the intention of leaving there living does not give the slave the right to sue for freedom in the courts of that state). In a Missouri State court, slaves could not be granted freedom. Once free didn't always mean free. When Dred Scott returned to Missouri voluntarily, he had given up his right to freedom. Thus the decision of the St. Louis Circuit Court was overturned. The Missouri Supreme Court ordered the case to be returned to the St. Louis Circuit Court and rescheduled in accordance with the Missouri Supreme Court's decision that slaves could not be given freedom by a Missouri court. Dred Scott's freedom was short-lived.
Federal level
After losing in the Missouri Supreme Court, the quickest, easiest way to win Scott's freedom would be to go to the United States Supreme Court. But there was a risk that the US Supreme Court, as in Strader v. Graham would decide what a quick end would have meant to Scott's quest for freedom. The only way for Scott to get his freedom after all would be an investigation or review of the emancipation that was given by the prohibition of slavery in the Territories by Congress. Scott had to file a lawsuit in federal court for this. It was no longer just about Scott's personal freedom, but an overarching political decision.
Circuit Court of the United States
On November 2, 1853, Scott filed a lawsuit in the United States Circuit Court against John FA Sanford, Irene Emerson's brother, for 'assault', 'holding' and 'imprisonment'. The official name of the judgment, Scott v. San d ford , goes back to a typist's mistake that was never corrected. Although it cannot be substantiated in the sources and is extremely doubtful, Sanford, who continued to administer his brother-in-law's estate, claimed to be the owner of Scott (however, when Irene married Chaffee, the property actually passed to Chaffee, who of course did not know that his wife owned slaves and only learned of his wife's involvement in the case in the course of the proceedings). Since Sanford was a citizen of New York State and Scott claimed to be a citizen of Missouri State, the case could go to federal court as part of the diversity of citizenships principle. The United States Constitution provides that such cases can be brought directly to federal courts.
On April 7, 1854, Sanford's attorney called for the suit to be dismissed. He argued that the US Circuit Court had no jurisdiction because Scott was not a Missouri citizen because he was a "negro of African descent". Thus, for the first time in the course of the proceedings, it was about black citizenship , i.e. the question of whether “negroes” could be citizens of the USA (“Afro-Americans”). On April 25, 1854, Judge Robert W. Wells decided to allow Scott's lawsuit on the grounds that every free person has the right to sue. So if Scott was not a slave, he had the right to sue. Wells' decision would therefore only be justified (or not) after a judgment. For the moment, Wells stated that a Missouri resident who could own property - which he believed was true of Scott - could be considered a citizen for the purpose of suing in federal court. The proceedings before the US Circuit Court were thus opened.
The trial took place on May 15, 1854. Scott's side argued that Scott was free under the Northwest Ordinance, the Illinois Constitution, and the Missouri Compromise. Judge Wells instructed the jurors that Scott's status was dependent on the laws of Missouri. The jury followed this instruction. Since the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that Scott was a slave, the jury in the Scott v. Sandford that Scott Sanford was owned and not free. During this first phase of the federal process, the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise did not matter. Nobody questioned the emancipation of slaves. The question was whether the freedom gained in a free area was lost by returning to a slave area. A new issue that arose during the proceedings before the US Circuit Court and which was later to have decisive consequences for all slaves and their descendants in the judgment of the Supreme Court was the issue of whether black citizens could be, which the representation of Sanford for the first time called into question .
United States Supreme Court
Process flow
Scott appealed the federal court decision to the United States Supreme Court on December 30, 1854 on the grounds that Judge Wells had acted incorrectly in his jury briefing. When Scott appealed to the Supreme Court, the judges were composed as follows: five judges (Wayne, Catron, Daniel, Campbell, Taney) came from slave states, and four from the north (McLean, Curtis, Nelson, Grier). Since Nelson and Grier were so-called 'doughfaces' (men from the north but with the principles of southerners), there was by no means a political balance in the Supreme Court, which was a fortress of the Democrats. Scott's chances of success were therefore negligible.
The Tribunal accepted the action and scheduled a four-day hearing for February 1856. The arguments were presented from February 11 to 14. There were mainly three questions. First, can black citizens be US citizens? Second, did Congress have the power to ban slavery in the Territories? Third, was the Missouri Compromise Constitutional? Montgomery Blair , Scott's attorney, argued that Scott had been emancipated from the Illinois Constitution. Blacks did not have all civil rights, but if it wasn't explicitly excluded, they were entitled to the rights of other citizens. Blair assumed that a citizen of a state is also a citizen of the United States. Henry S. Greyer and Reverdy Johnson , Sanford's attorneys, claimed that Scott was never free because Congress lacks the authority to outlaw slavery. It was no longer a question of whether Scott could lose his freedom, but of whether he had acquired it at all.
The judges deliberated from February 22, 1856, whereby the question of jurisdiction was problematic. The unanimous decision was made that the arguments should be presented again ('re-argument'). The two parties should particularly address the question of whether the dismissal of the suit before the Supreme Court was legitimate and whether a free black citizen of the USA could be and thus sued in a federal court, i.e. could lead a so-called 'suit in diversity'. On December 15, 1856, new petitions were submitted and presented. Sanford's attorney argued that to be able to sue in federal court, you had to be a citizen of the state you lived in, and Missouri did not give blacks that right. Greyer and Johnson also stated that while the Illinois Constitution and the Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery, this did not mean that slaves were actively emancipated. One final argument was that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional: nowhere in the United States Constitution was Congress given the right to outlaw slavery. Blair argued for Scott that the Missouri Compromise was constitutional because Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution gave Congress the power to "dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or the property belonging to the United States". The question of citizenship could not even be up for debate, since the other side did not contradict this in the decision of the lower instance. There was also a statute in Missouri that explicitly recognized the citizenship of free blacks, since people who were citizens of other states were so when they came to Missouri.
After the judges had heard the new arguments, they conferred on February 14, 1857. They initially agreed not to address the citizen question and not the Missouri Compromise in their judgment. They wanted their decision on the basis of the principle that the Supreme Court would normally be based on the decisions of the Supreme State Courts, and on the principle of the Strader v. Graham that the status of a black man depended on the law of the state he was in. But then the court changed the course it had taken. The sources suggest three possible reasons for this: McLean and Curtis wanted to write a powerful dissenting opinion; Wayne convinced the others that if you did go ahead with citizenship and the Missouri Compromise, you would win the South and end any agitation on the territorial slavery issue; Outsiders put pressure on the judges to have the court override Congress' prohibition of slavery.
Judgment and reason
On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Taney announced the Supreme Court decision. She fell seven to two votes against Scott. In the opinion of the court, three essential questions had to be clarified:
- Was the court competent? As citizens of the United States, could black people sue in federal court?
- Did Congress have the authority to ban slavery in the Territories?
- If not, did Missouri have to recognize Scott's freedom because of his stay in Illinois?
Taney first dealt with the question of whether the court had jurisdiction over the case at all in his reasoning for the judgment. Article 3, Section 2, 1st sentence of the United States Constitution provides that federal jurisdiction extends to disputes between citizens of different states. With the differentiation between 'federal citizenship' and 'state citizenship' - he was of the opinion that citizens of a state were not automatically also citizens of the USA - Taney introduced a completely new legal interpretation and thus the concept of 'dual citizenship'. He also explained that after the adoption of the constitution in 1787, states were not allowed to determine who was considered a citizen and to grant people (read: blacks) privileges to which they were not entitled. According to Taney, the phrase "to ourselves and posterity" in the preamble referred only to whites. So it made no difference whether Missouri considered Scott a citizen or not. The only relevant question after Taney was whether Scott might be considered a citizen of the United States before the Constitution was passed. However, this possibility was also denied by the court. It described the blacks at the time the Constitution was passed as
“... as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; 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. "
“... as beings of a lower order who are altogether unable to connect with the white race, neither in social nor in political terms; so much inferior that they had no rights that the white man would have been obliged to respect and that the negro might be restricted to slavery for his own good under law and law. "
Taney ignored historical facts, as Curtis demonstrated in his dissenting opinion, in believing that at the time the United States was founded, "Negroes" had no right to bear arms, vote, or participate in trials involving white parties. Taney came to the conclusion that Scott was not a citizen of a state for the purposes of the constitution and therefore had no right to file a lawsuit at the federal level.
The court used an argumentum ad consequentiam to say that a judgment in Scott's favor would have intolerable consequences:
“It would give to persons of the negro race, […] the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, […] the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went ”
“It would give negro people the right to enter any state at will, to exercise complete freedom of expression in public and in private on any subject that its own citizens might speak on, to hold public meetings on political issues and to own and carry weapons. "
Taney now turned to the question of whether Congress had the authority to outlaw slavery in the Territories. Since the court had ruled that Scott had no right to sue in federal court, many contemporaries, including some legal scholars, saw this as dictum , a non-binding opinion, because Taney should not have proceeded without jurisdiction. Taney's opinion was binding until further notice. The court had ruled that Scott, being black, couldn't be a citizen. Taney justified this by stating that Scott could not be a citizen because he was a slave. Scott was a slave in his eyes, even though he had lived in the Wisconsin Territory for a long time. The court justified this with the fact that Congress lacked the competence to pass the Missouri Compromise and it was therefore unconstitutional. This was only the second time that the Tribunal had heard of the Marbury v. Madison ruled a federal law unconstitutional . Taney laid the territory clause of the constitution (Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2: "Congress has the right to dispose of the lands and other property of the United States and to make all necessary orders and regulations [...]". ) such that this only applied to territories that were part of the United States in 1787. The Missouri Compromise was not only unconstitutional in his eyes, but also because it violated the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees citizens' property. Taney viewed slaves as property, and the Missouri Compromise would unlawfully deprive slaveholders of their property by Congress.
All that remained for Taney was to clarify whether Scott could be free through his stay in Illinois. He denied this due to the decision of the precedent Strader v. Graham : The fact that the slave was free by staying in a free state does not mean that he was permanently emancipated when he returned to a slave state.
Six judges agreed with Chairman Taney, Nelson agreed with the result but disagreed with the reasoning. Justices Curtis and McLean did not endorse the verdict.
In summary, in the Scott v. Sandford decided:
- The US Circuit Court's decision to dismiss was a matter for the Supreme Court.
- Blacks weren't citizens. They couldn't sue in federal courts. The US Circuit Court should not have accepted the case.
- Scott was not free from his stay at Fort Snelling as the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.
- Scott was not free because of his stay at Fort Armstrong, according to Strader v. Graham .
- For these reasons, the case was returned to the US Circuit Court, which had to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.
Effects
The ruling was the culmination of a political movement seeking to expand slavery in the United States. As a result of the new acquisition of territories at the beginning of the 19th century and the resulting inclusion of new states, the Missouri Compromise was concluded in 1820, which limited slavery, with the exception of Missouri, to the states south of a line at 36 ° 30 'north latitude. Since 1854 this compromise has been increasingly eroded , especially by politicians from the Democratic Party . Under the Kansas-Nebraska Act , all new states, including those north of the 40th parallel, should be able to decide for themselves whether slavery should be allowed or prohibited on their territory. The decision of Dred Scott v. Sandford endorsed this principle one more time. In the northern states this was increasingly perceived as a threat to their own position. This sounds as in the famous House Divided speech by Abraham Lincoln at.
Although Judge Taney believed he had finally settled the slave question with his verdict , he achieved the exact opposite: In the north it united the opponents of slavery, in the southern states it encouraged secessionist elements to make even more extensive demands. It also splintered the Democratic Party into hostile north and south factions, thereby strengthening the young Republican Party . The majority of Republicans did not yet reject slavery in principle, but they did reject its spread to other areas and the expected increase in power for southern states and slave owners.
Dr. Chaffee ceded his rights to Dred Scott to Taylor Blow, the son of Scott's first owner Peter Blow. This gave Dred Scott and his family on May 26, 1857 freedom. Scott died of tuberculosis on September 17 the following year .
The decision in the Scott v. Sandford applies alongside Plessy v. Ferguson as one of the worst in American legal history. It was repealed in 1865 by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which ended slavery, and in 1868 by the 14th Amendment, which defined citizenship ( "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" ).
See also
literature
- Dennis-Jonathan Mann & Kai Purnhagen: The Nature of Union Citizenship between Autonomy and Dependency on (Member) State Citizenship - A Comparative Analysis of the Rottmann Ruling, or: How to Avoid a European Dred Scott Decision? , in: Wisconsin International Law Journal (WILJ) , Volume 29, No. 3 (Fall 2011), pp. 484–533 (PDF)
- Dred Scott Case . In: The Columbia Encyclopedia. Sixth Edition . 2001 (English, online here ).
- Don E. Fehrenbacher : The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics . Oxford University Press, Columbia, Missouri 2001, ISBN 0-19-514588-7 (English).
- Don Edward Fehrenbacher: Slavery, Law, and Politics: The Dred Scott Case in Historical Perspective . Oxford University Press, New York, New York 1981, ISBN 0-19-502883-X (English).
- Paul Finkelman: Dred Scott v. Sandford: A Brief History with Documents . Bedford Books, Boston, Massachusetts 1997, ISBN 0-312-12807-X (English).
- Kermit L. Hall: The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions . Oxford University Press, New York, New York 1999, ISBN 0-19-511883-9 (English).
- Kenneth C. Kaufman: Dred Scott's Advocate: A Biography of Roswell M. Field . University of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri 1996, ISBN 0-8262-1092-9 (English).
- Walter Ehrlich: They Have No Rights. Dred Scott's Struggle for Freedom . Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut / London 1979, ISBN 0-313-20819-0 (English).
- David Thomas Konig, Paul Finkelman and Christopher Alan Bracey (eds.): The Dred Scott Case. Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Race and Law . Ohio University Press, Athens 2010, ISBN 978-0-8214-1911-3 (English).
- Lea VanderVelde: Mrs. Dred Scott. A Life on Slavery's Frontier . Oxford University Press, Oxford / New York 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-536656-3 (English).
Web link
Individual evidence
- ↑ Ethan Greenberg: Dred Scott and the Dangers of a Political Court . Lexington Books, Lanham 2010, ISBN 978-0-7391-3759-8 (English, 340 pp., Google.com [accessed February 21, 2019]).
- ↑ Finkelman, Dred Scott v. Sandford , 227f.
- ↑ Finkelman, Dred Scott v. Sandford , 228f.
- ↑ Finkelman, Dred Scott v. Sandford , 2f.
- ↑ Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 41.
- ↑ Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 41.
- ↑ Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 41; 56.
- ↑ Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 42.
- ↑ Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 41-43.
- ↑ Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 43-46.
- ↑ Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 41.
- ↑ Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 47-50.
- ↑ Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 51-54.
- ↑ Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 55-58.
- ↑ Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 58-60.
- ↑ Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 58-61.
- ↑ Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 61-70.
- ^ Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case , 268f.
- ^ Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case , 271. Cf. Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 75-77.
- ↑ Quoted in Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 82.
- ↑ Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 83-88. Cf. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case , 276-280.
- ^ Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case , 279f.
- ↑ Finkelman, Dred Scott v. Sanford , 29-31.
- ↑ Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 89-97.
- ^ CRS Annotated Constitution , Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School .
- ↑ Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 109-121.
- ↑ Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 122-134.
- ^ Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case , 303.
- ↑ a b Constitution of the United States of America , German translation of the text on Wikisource
- ^ Judgment, p. 407
- ^ Judgment, p. 427
- ↑ Ehrlich, They Have No Rights , 137-149. Cf. Finkelman, Dred Scott v. Sanford , 55-76; Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case , 322-364.
- ^ Judgment, p. 417
- ^ Judgment, p. 451 f.
- ↑ Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case , 365-388.
- ^ Finkelman, Scott v. Sandford , 69.
