DRED SCOTT CASE, the most far-reach ing slavery case ever in the United States courts. Dred, born in Missouri about 1810, was a slave of Dr. Emerson, an army surgeon, who took him in 1834 to Rock Island, Ill., and May 1836 to Fort Snelling, Wisconsin Territory (now Minnesota), where he married Harriet, a slave of his master, and had two children. Slavery was illegal in both places: in Illinois by its constitution, in Wisconsin (upper Louisi ana Purchase) by the Missouri Compromise. In 1838 he was taken back to Missouri — Saint Louis.
Here in 1848 was living the eminent free-soil lawyer, Francis P. Blair, Jr. He learned of Dred's migrations, and wishing to test the right of slavery to reclaim persons once free, induced Dred on being whipped by his master to sue for assault and battery in the State Circuit Court of Saint Louis County. Blair and his free-soil friends furnished funds and legal as sistance. The suit was sustainable only if Dred was a free citizen charging violence from an other citizen; and the court held that his resi dence on free soil had made him free, and there was no legal power to re-enslave him. Appeal was taken to the supreme court of Missouri, which reversed the decision; the two associate justices against the chief justice de cided that Emerson had only made a tempo rary change of domicile in obedience to gov ernment orders, that his property was held ac cording to the laws of his permanent domicile, and that Scott's servile character was merely in abeyance and fully resumed on return to Missouri; refused to consider the Illinois con stitution or the Missouri Compromise as rele vant, and sent back the case to the Circuit Court.
Meantime Emerson had sold Dred and his family to John F. A. Sandford of New York and suit was brought against Sandford for assault and battery in carrying off Scott this time in the Federal Circuit Court for Missouri, on the constitutional ground that he was a citizen of a different State from Sandford. Sandford denied jurisdicion on the
ground that Dred was not a citizen but "a negro of African descent," progeny of negro slaves. Dred's counsel demurred (admitted the facts but denied their sufficiency), claiming that being a negro did not prevent his being a citizen; the court sustained him. Sandford denied assault and battery, claiming that he only "gently laid hands" on him to coerce him, as was his right toward a slave; the court instructed the jury that this was law ; Dred's counsel took excep tion, and the case went up to the United States Supreme Court.
It was argued at the December terms of 1855 and 1856. Montgomery Blair (brother of Francis P.) and George Ticknor Curtis (brother of Judge Curtis) were counsel for Scott, Reverdy Johnson and Henry S. Geyer for Sandford; all gratuitously. Justice Nelson pre pared a brief abstract of the decision ; but the public excitement over the slavery question was so intense and menacing to the Union (just after the Buchanan-Fremont election), that it was decided to have Chief Justice Taney write a full and careful review of the whole law on the subject of slavery, in hope of making the members of the free-soil party accept it con tentedly and cease their agitation. Taney and six assistant judges concurred against Scott; Curtis and McLean dissented.
The written decisions were withheld from the public till 6 March 1857, two days after the inauguration, to avoid embroiling Pierce's last months. The decision proper was essentially the same as that of the Supreme Court of Mis souri; that Dred Scott as a negro was not a citizen of the United States within the intent of the Constitution, and therefore the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction and the suit should be dismissed. This decision remained United States law, an irremovable barrier in the way of granting civil rights to the colored race, till the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (see