In anticipation of the 1857 delivery of the Dred Scott decision I wanted to learn what it was about. This book took care of that but also a whole lot more. A blurb on the back cover calls this book “probably the most thorough study of any Supreme Court decision ever undertaken.†I can’t confirm that but I wouldn’t be surprised if it is true. A lot of the value I got was background to the Dred Scott case. The first 235 pages are devoted to giving the reader sufficient information to understand the factors involved. Accordingly, slavery in America is examined from the delivery of the first African slaves to Jamestown in 1619, through the acknowledgement of slavery in the U.S. Constitution, and the problems of dealing with slavery during the expansion of the United States into new territories and states. That epic story takes 208 of those pages. Then follows a chapter on the Supreme Court that describes the evolution of judicial review from the English parliamentary model of the 17th century, through the era of the John Marshall court and up to our 160-year-old “present†at the time of Chief Justice Roger Taney.
Most of the details covered were new information to me. I might have learned about the broad concepts at different times during my government-supplied education but most of the important stuff in new to me. It was heavy going at times but I am quite glad I got the book and made the effort to read as far as I have. I plan to read it all over time. I should give a summary of the Scott case here to update those who are not familiar with it. The following all comes from the book.
Dred Scott was a slave owned by a Peter Blow, who moved from Alabama to St. Louis in 1830. Blow died in June 1832. Either Blow himself, before he died, or his estate, shortly after his death, sold Dred Scott to Dr. John Emerson of St. Louis. In December 1833 Emerson received a commission as an assistant surgeon in the U.S. Army and reported for duty at Fort Armstrong in Illinois, a free state. During his time at Fort Armstrong Emerson bought property across the Mississippi River in Iowa. Emerson improved the property, with Dred Scott probably doing much of the work. In 1836 Emerson was transferred to Fort Snelling in what is now Minnesota. That area was part of the Louisiana Purchase closed to slavery by the Missouri Compromise. There Scott met a slave girl named Harriet Robinson and they were married by a justice of the peace. Harriet’s owner either sold her to Emerson or gave her to Dred for a wife. The couple had 4 children, two of whom survived infancy and became parties in his eventual suit for freedom. In 1837 Emerson was ordered back to Jefferson Barracks in St. Louis. The Scotts apparently remained at Fort Snelling for a time. Emerson was ordered to Fort Jessup in Louisiana and arrived there in November 1837. In February 1838 Emerson married Eliza Irene Sanford. Emerson then sent for the Scotts and the couple travelled to Louisiana. By September 1838 the Emersons and their slaves travelled back to Ft. Snelling, arriving in October. Another traveler on the steamboat recorded that a daughter was born to the Scotts after they reached a point north of Missouri. That meant the child was born on free territory. In 1840 Emerson received orders to Florida. Mrs. Emerson and the Scotts remained in St. Louis when Emerson went to Florida. In 1842 Emerson was discharged from the army and returned to St. Louis. From there he went to Iowa, with the Scotts probably remaining in St. Louis. Emerson died in Iowa on December 29, 1843.
Emerson left his estate to his wife, Irene Sanford Emerson. One executor of the will was Mrs. Emerson’s brother, John F.A. Sanford. The administrator was her father, Alexander Sanford. The estate was settled by 1850 with Mrs. Emerson assuming full control.
On April 6, 1846, Dred and Harriet Scott filed petitions in the Missouri circuit court at St. Louis seeking to establish their right to freedom based on their residence on free soil. Under Missouri law they had a strong case. As Fehrenbacher says, “again and again, the highest curt of the state had ruled that a master who took his slave to reside in a state or territory where slavery was prohibited thereby emancipated him.†Unfortunately for the Scotts, their lawyer allowed a technical weakness in his case to sabotage the verdict. He didn’t provide a witness that could establish that Mrs. Emerson owned the Scotts, even though all concerned knew that to be the case. Because of that defect the verdict went against the Scotts. They filed a motion for a retrial, but the defendant filed something called a bill of exceptions and the case was sent to the supreme court of Missouri. It was not until March 22, 1852 that the state supreme court handed down a decision. The Scotts still had the facts on their side and probably would have prevailed except that the issue of slavery had become so heated in the nation by 1852 that the proslavery justices of Missouri were not disposed to give the anti-slavery side their way. The court ruled against the Scotts.
The next step for the case (formerly Scott v. Emerson, now Scott v. Sandford) was a U.S. circuit court, where on January 25, 1854 the case was “continued by consent, awaiting decision of Supreme Court of the United States.†After reviewing the chapter I am unable to explain why the case is called Scott v. Sandford when the newly designated defendant is named Sanford.
That is where the case sits in January 1856. For most of the nation the fate of a family of slaves is an afterthought compared to the enormous political stakes involved during this presidential election year. All of that is spelled out in “The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics.†I recommend the book for anyone who wants to learn about this matter that became so crucial to U.S. history. I consider it well worth the time I invested in reading it.