14th MAY 2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Justice 1 John A. Campbell, Justice 2 John Catron, Justice 3 Benjamin R. Curtis, Justice 4 Peter V. Daniel,
Justice 6 James McLean, Justice 7 Samuel Nelson, Justice 8 James M. Wayne
Dred Scott v. Sandford

Dred Scott`s Attorneys: Sandford`s Attorneys:

Attorney 1 Attorney 1
Attorney 2 Attorney 2
Attorney 3 Attorney 3

Summary of the trail

Dred Scott v. Sandford has been brought up once again in the courtroom, the case
which consists in whether or not a Dred Scott should be declared a free man.
Scott’s attorneys focused on the interpretation of the decision of Lord Mansfield in
the Somerset v. Steward Case (1772), The case of Knight v. Wedderburn, Freedom Suits
in Antebellum Missouri, The Laws of the state Missouri, Laws of the Territory of
Louisiana, The case of Rachel v. William Walker (1836), The case of Ralph v. Coleman
Duncan (1833) and the rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (1850). They
emphasized the fact that “Once a free man, always a free man” which is not true, because
Scott was never a free man.
Sandford’s attorneys highlighted that slaves are property and that they can be
taken with them in a free state. They provided solutions such as not giving Dred Scott the
privilege of freedom.
Both parties presented evidence in which they supported their cases with examples.
The questioning by the justices followed.
The examination begins with Attorney 2 on behalf of Dred Scott witness, a
member of the U.S House of Representatives from Massachusetts, Calvin Clifford
Chafee. Next up took the stand of Attorney 3 on behalf of Dred Scott witness, Harriet
Scott, wife of Dred Scott. The third witness of Attorney’s 1 on behalf of Dred Scott was
Henry Dutton, professor of Law at the University of Yale. When each testimony had
finished, the Attorney’s on the Sandford side had asked their questions, and after that, the
justices intervened and placed their questions to clarify each point of view. The witnesses
on behalf of Sanford, the first witness was Judge Alexander Hamilton, which had been
the judge of the trail in June 30, 1847, in the St. Louis Circuit Court, then Irene Emerson
was the second witness, the wife of Dr. John Emerson and last but not least, Albert
Sidney Johnston who served as colonel of the Second Regiment of Cavalry.
 Closing statements accentuated each of the benches’ ideas which were presented
in their previous speeches held through the trial. The attorneys brought their speeches to a
conclusion by trying to convince the justices one last time to choose in their favor, a
decision based on their evidence and their witnesses’ testimonies.
Summary of evidence
Firstly the evidence provided includes several historical documents and court
cases related to the Dred Scott v. Sandford case.

● The first document presented is the transcript of The Constitution of the United
States of America, which establishes the framework for the federal government
and outlines the basic rights of American citizens, including the separation of
powers, the role of the judiciary,and the rights and protection afforded to citizens.
● The second document is The Rules of the Supreme Court 1850, which outlines the
rules and procedures that govern the Supreme Court. ​This evidence refers to the
rules governing the Supreme Court in 1850. These rules outlined how the court
operated and how cases were heard and decided.
● The third document is the list of amendments to the United States Constitution,
which includes the first 12 amendments ratified by February 10, 1856. This
evidence has its importance because it notes that at the time of the Dred Scott case,
only the first 12 amendments had been ratified.
● The fourth document is The Missouri Compromise of 1820, which established
guidelines for admitting new states to the Union as either free or slave states. It
established a line dividing the country into "slave" and "free" territories. It
prohibited slavery in the northern territories of the Louisiana Purchase, with the
exception of Missouri, which was admitted to the Union as a slave state.
● The fifth document is The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which provided for the
establishment of new territories and the eventual admission of those territories as
states and prohibiting slavery in the territories north of the Ohio River.
● The sixth document is U.S Constitution Art. III, which establishes the judicial
branch of the federal government and outlines the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court. This evidence refers to Article III of the United States Constitution, which
establishes the judiciary and highlights the powers and responsibilities of the
federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
● The seventh and eighth documents are court cases related to slavery and territorial
law. Winny v. Whitesides established that a slave owner must have the intent to
reside in free territory in order for their slaves to become free. This is a court case
in which a woman named Winny sued her owner, Samuel Whitesides, for her
 freedom. The court ruled that if a slave owner takes their slave into a free territory
with the intention of residing there, and stays there for a significant period of time,
then the slave would be considered free. However, if the slave owner was just
passing through the territory, then the slave would remain a slave.
● Rachel v. William Walker argued that military officers could not bring their slaves
into non-slaveholding states. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Rachel,
granting her freedom. However, the decision was not fully enforced as Rachel was
subsequently sold to a new owner who took her back to slavery in Missouri.
Despite this, the case set an important legal precedent, showing that the Northwest
Ordinance prohibited slavery in the territory and that individuals could not take
their slaves to free territory and maintain ownership over them.
● The ninth document is Strader v. Graham, which argued that the status of a slave
returning from a free state must be determined by the slave state itself. In this
Supreme Court case, the court ruled that the status of a slave returning from a free
state must be determined by the slave state itself. In other words, if a slave owner
takes their slave to a free state, and then returns to their home state, the slave's
status would still be that of a slave.
● The tenth and eleventh documents provide background information on the Dred
Scott v. Sandford case. The Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 outlines the
requirements for becoming a naturalized citizen, while the Laws Concerning
Slavery in Missouri outline the specific laws that black people, free or slave, had
to adhere to in Missouri.
Overall, the evidence presented provides a legal context for understanding the
Dred Scott v. Sandford case.

Legal grounds
U.S Constitution Art. IlI
Section 2:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in
which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the
other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both
as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress
shall make.
U.S Constitution Art. IV Section 2:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in
the several States. A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime,
who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the
executive. Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to
the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into
another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from
such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such
Service or Labour may be due.
United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,"
March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall
have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term
of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common
law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of
one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of
good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the
Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the
children of such a naturalized dwelling within the United States, being under the age of
twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of
the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born
beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born
Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers
have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore
proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the
Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

The merits of each claim

Dred Scott’s attorneys stated the following: Doctor John Emerson, the owner of
Dred Scott, brought him to Illinois, where slavery is illegal. Therefore, Dred Scott could
not be a slave, and was entitled to freedom. Another argument that was brought up was
that The Declaration of Independence states that “All Men are created equal”, the reason
why Dred Scott should be judged as a citizen of the United States of America, and should
be granted freedom. Moreover, the doctrine “Once a free man, always a free man” is
recognised by the law and has been applied in precedent cases, therefore it should be
applied in Dred Scott’s case.
 Sandford’s attorneys believe that because Dr. Emerson was an army surgeon who
was forcefully deployed on a mission in Illinois, without having any intent of being a
resident, the laws of Illinois should not apply to this situation, and Dred Scott should
remain his property. Another argument against Dred Scott was that he was not a citizen of
the United States of America, therefore could not be granted freedom. Furthermore, “The
Naturalisation Act” and “The Missouri Compromise” were both brought up, in order to
acknowledge that not all men are equal, the reason why Dred Scott, a man of
African-American descent, should remain enslaved.

Decision
For the reasons,
THE COURT
Affirms that the interpretation recognizes the impossibility of granting Dred Scott
freedom on the pretense of having been moved to free states from the state of Missouri, a
slave state, considering his masters’ lack of intentional residency, furthermore not being
favored in declaring Ms. Dred Scott, his family and his descendants free men due to their
residence in the free state of Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory as well as granting them
citizenship.

By 4 votes in favor and 3 against.

The Court decides that Dred Scott should not be granted freedom from slavery.

Justice John A. Campbell, Justice James McLean and Justice Samuel Nelson appends a
dissenting opinion to the Order of the Court:
Dissenting opinion
We must dissent from the majority opinion in this case, as we believe it to be not only
legally unsound, but also fundamentally unjust. It is clear to us that Dred Scott is entitled
to his freedom, and that the decision of the lower court denying him that freedom was in
error.
First and foremost, it is important to recognize that Dred Scott is a human being, with
inalienable rights that cannot be taken away from him by any earthly power. As a black
man, he has long been denied those rights by the white majority in this country, who have
enslaved and oppressed him for centuries. But the fact that this injustice has been allowed
to continue for so long does not make it any less of an injustice. It is time for us to
recognize the humanity and dignity of all people, regardless of their race, and to give
them the full protection of the law.
Secondly, the legal arguments put forth by the majority in this case are deeply flawed.
They rely on a narrow and technical reading of the Constitution and the laws of the land,
without regard for the larger principles of justice and equality that should guide our
interpretation of those documents. The majority argues that because Dred Scott was
brought into a free state and then returned to a slave state, he does not have the right to
claim his freedom. But this argument ignores the fact that slavery itself is an unjust
institution, and that no person can be rightfully enslaved, regardless of the circumstances
of their enslavement.
Finally, it is worth noting that the decision in this case will have prolonged consequences
for the future of our country. If we allow slavery to continue to be maintained and
protected by the law, we are perpetuating a system of injustice that will only lead to
further conflict and division. On the other hand, if we recognize the humanity and dignity
of all people, and work to build a society that is truly just and equitable, we can create a
brighter future for ourselves and for generations to come.
In conclusion, we believe that the decision of the majority in this case is deeply unjust,
and that we must do everything in our power to rectify this injustice and to give Dred
Scott the freedom that is rightfully his. Only then can we begin to build a society that is
truly just and equitable for all.