Editing Dred Scott v. Sandford (section)

==Procedural history==
=== ''Scott v. Emerson'' ===

==== First state circuit court trial ====
{{Events leading to US Civil War}}Having been unsuccessful in his attempt to purchase his freedom, Dred Scott, with the help of his legal advisers, sued Emerson for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County on April 6, 1846.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=36}} [[Harriet Robinson Scott#Separate lawsuits|A separate petition was filed for his wife Harriet]], making them the first married couple to file [[freedom suit]]s in tandem in its 50-year history.<ref name=":2">{{Cite book |last=VanderVelde |first=Lea |url=https://archive.org/details/mrsdredscottlife00vand_0/page/232/mode/2up |title=Mrs. Dred Scott: A Life on Slavery's Frontier |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2009 |isbn=978-0195366563}}</ref>{{Rp|page=232}} They received financial assistance from the family of Dred's previous owner, Peter Blow.{{sfnp|Finkelman|2007}} Blow's daughter [[Charlotte Taylor Blow Charless|Charlotte]] was married to Joseph Charless, an officer at the Bank of Missouri. Charless signed legal documents as security for the Scotts and later secured the services of the bank's attorney, [[Samuel M. Bay|Samuel Mansfield Bay]], for the trial.<ref name="Missouri Digital Heritage"/>

It was expected that the Scotts would win their freedom with relative ease.{{sfnp|Finkelman|2007}}<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|page=241}} By 1846, dozens of freedom suits had been won in Missouri by former slaves.<ref name=":2" /> Most had claimed their legal right to freedom on the basis that they, or their mothers, had previously lived in free states or territories.<ref name=":2" /> Among the most important legal precedents were ''[[Winny v. Whitesides]]''<ref>1 Mo. 472, 475 (Mo. 1824).</ref> and ''[[Rachel v. Walker]].''<ref>4 Mo. 350 (Mo. 1836).</ref> In ''Winny v. Whitesides'', the Missouri Supreme Court had ruled in 1824 that a person who had been held as a slave in Illinois, where slavery was illegal, and then brought to Missouri, was free by virtue of residence in a free state.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=41}} In ''Rachel v. Walker'', the state supreme court had ruled that a U.S. Army officer who took a slave to a military post in a territory where slavery was prohibited and retained her there for several years, had thereby "forfeit[ed] his property".<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=42}} Rachel, like Dred Scott, had accompanied her enslaver to Fort Snelling.<ref name=":0" />

Scott was represented by three different lawyers from the filing of the original petition to the time of the actual trial, over one year later. The first was [[Francis B. Murdoch]], a prolific freedom suit attorney who abruptly left St. Louis.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Gardner |first=Eric |date=Spring 2007 |title='You Have No Business to Whip Me': The Freedom Suits of Polly Wash and Lucy Ann Delaney |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/40033764 |journal=African American Review |volume=41 |issue=1 |pages=40, 47 |jstor=40033764}}</ref><ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=38}} Murdoch was replaced by Charles D. Drake, an in-law of the Blow family.<ref name=":0" /> When Drake also left the state, [[Samuel M. Bay]] took over as the Scotts' lawyer.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=They Have No Rights: Dred Scott's Struggle for Freedom|last=Ehrlich|first=Walter|publisher=Applewood Books|year=2007}}</ref> Irene Emerson was represented by George W. Goode, a proslavery lawyer from Virginia.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Fehrenbacher |first=Don Edward |url=https://archive.org/details/slaverylawpoliti0000fehr/page/n3/mode/2up |title=Slavery, Law and Politics: The Dred Scott Case in Historical Perspective |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1981 |isbn=0195028821 |location=New York}}</ref>{{Rp|page=130}} By the time the case went to trial, it had been reassigned from Judge [[John Krum|John M. Krum]], who was proslavery, to Judge Alexander Hamilton, who was known to be sympathetic to freedom suits.<ref name="Missouri Digital Heritage" />

''Dred Scott v. Irene Emerson'' finally went to trial for the first time on June 30, 1847.<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|page=130}} Henry Peter Blow testified in court that his father had owned Dred and sold him to John Emerson.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=44}} The fact that Scott had been taken to live on free soil was clearly established through depositions from witnesses who had known Scott and Dr. Emerson at Fort Armstrong and Fort Snelling.<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|pages=130–131}} Grocer Samuel Russell testified that he had hired the Scotts from Irene Emerson and paid her father, Alexander Sanford, for their services.<ref name=":1" /> Upon cross examination, however, Russell admitted that the leasing arrangements had actually been made by his wife, Adeline.<ref name=":1" />

Thus, Russell's testimony was ruled [[hearsay]], and the jury returned a verdict for Emerson.<ref name="Missouri Digital Heritage" /> This created a seemingly contradictory outcome in which Scott was ordered by the court to remain Irene Emerson's slave, because he had been unable to prove that he was previously Irene Emerson's slave.<ref name="Missouri Digital Heritage" />

==== First state supreme court appeal ====
Bay moved immediately for a new trial on the basis that Scott's case had been lost due to a technicality which could be rectified, rather than the facts.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=47}} Judge Hamilton finally issued the order for a new trial on December 2, 1847.<ref name=":0" /> Two days later, Emerson's lawyer objected to a new trial by filing a bill of exceptions.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" />{{Rp|page=131}} The case was then taken on [[Appeal|writ of error]] to the [[Supreme Court of Missouri]].<ref name="Missouri Digital Heritage" /> Scott's new lawyers, [[Alexander Pope Field|Alexander P. Field]] and David N. Hall, argued that the writ of error was inappropriate because the lower court had not yet issued a final judgment.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=50}} The state supreme court agreed unanimously with their position and dismissed Emerson's appeal on June 30, 1848.<ref name=":0" /> The main issue before the court at this stage was procedural and no substantive issues were discussed.<ref name=":0" />

==== Second state circuit court trial ====
Before the state supreme court had convened, Goode had presented a motion on behalf of Emerson to have Scott taken into custody and hired out.<ref name=":1" /> On March 17, 1848, Judge Hamilton issued the order to the St. Louis County sheriff.<ref name=":0" />{{Efn|Legal historian Walter Ehrlich implies that the custody order applied only to Dred Scott, while Don Fehrenbacher suggests that it applied to both Dred and Harriet.}} Anyone hiring Scott had to post a bond of six hundred dollars.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=49}} Wages he earned during that time were placed in [[escrow]], to be paid to the party that prevailed in the lawsuit.<ref name=":0" /> Scott would remain in the sheriff's custody or hired out by him until March 18, 1857.<ref name=":0" /> One of Scott's lawyers, David N. Hall, hired him starting March 17, 1849.<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|page=261}}

The [[St. Louis Fire of 1849]], a [[1846–1860 cholera pandemic#1840s|cholera epidemic]], and two [[continuance]]s delayed the retrial in the St. Louis Circuit Court until January 12, 1850.<ref name="Missouri Digital Heritage" /><ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=51}} Irene Emerson was now defended by [[Hugh A. Garland]] and Lyman D. Norris, while Scott was represented by Field and Hall.<ref name=":0" /> Judge Alexander Hamilton was presiding.<ref name="Missouri Digital Heritage" /> The proceedings were similar to the first trial.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=52}} The same depositions from Catherine A. Anderson and Miles H. Clark were used to establish that Dr. Emerson had taken Scott to free territory.<ref name=":0" />

This time, the hearsay problem was surmounted by a deposition from Adeline Russell stating that she had hired the Scotts from Irene Emerson, thereby proving that Emerson claimed them as her slaves.<ref name=":0" /> Samuel Russell testified in court once again that he had paid for their services.<ref name=":0" /> The defense then changed strategy and argued in their summation that Mrs. Emerson had every right to hire out Dred Scott, because he had lived with Dr. Emerson at Fort Armstrong and Fort Snelling under military jurisdiction, not under civil law.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" />{{Rp|page=132}} In doing so, the defense ignored the precedent set by ''Rachel v. Walker.''<ref name=":1" /> In his rebuttal, Hall stated that the fact that they were military posts did not matter, and pointed out that Dr. Emerson had left Scott behind at Fort Snelling, hired out to others, after being reassigned to a new post.<ref name=":4">{{Cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.44028/page/n269/mode/2up |title=American State Trials |publisher=Thomas Law Book Company |year=1921 |editor-last=Lawson |editor-first=John |volume=13 |location=St. Louis |pages=237–238}}</ref>

The jury quickly returned a verdict in favor of Dred Scott, nominally making him a free man.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=53}} Judge Hamilton declared Harriet, Eliza and Lizzie Scott to be free as well.<ref name=":0" /> Garland moved immediately for a new trial, and was overruled.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=55}} On February 13, 1850, Emerson's defense filed a bill of exceptions, which was certified by Judge Hamilton, setting into motion another appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court.<ref name=":0" /> Counsel for the opposing sides signed an agreement that moving forward, only ''Dred Scott v. Irene Emerson'' would be advanced, and that any decision made by the high court would apply to Harriet's suit, also.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=43}} In 1849 or 1850, Irene Emerson left St. Louis and moved to [[Springfield, Massachusetts]].<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=55}} Her brother, [[John F. A. Sanford]], continued looking after her business interests when she left,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Finkelman |first=Paul |date=December 2006 |title=Scott v. Sandford: The Court's Most Dreadful Case and How It Changed History |url=https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol82/iss1/2 |journal=Chicago-Kent Law Review |volume=82 |issue=1 |page=25 |via=Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law}}</ref> and her departure had no impact on the case.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=56}}

==== Second state supreme court appeal ====
Both parties filed briefs with the Supreme Court of Missouri on March 8, 1850.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=57}} A busy docket delayed consideration of the case until the October term.<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|page=133}} By then, the issue of slavery had become politically charged, even within the judiciary.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last=Boman |first=Dennis K. |date=2000 |title=The Dred Scott Case Reconsidered: The Legal and Political Context in Missouri |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3113785 |journal=American Journal of Legal History |volume=44 |issue=4 |pages=421, 423–424, 426 |doi=10.2307/3113785 |jstor=3113785}}</ref><ref name=":1" />{{Rp|page=134}} Although the Missouri Supreme Court had not yet overturned precedent in freedom suits, in the 1840s, the court's proslavery justices had explicitly stated their opposition to freeing slaves.<ref name=":3" /> After the court convened on October 25, 1850, the two justices who were proslavery anti-Benton Democrats – [[William Barclay Napton]] and [[James Harvey Birch]] – persuaded [[John Ferguson Ryland]], a [[Thomas Hart Benton (politician)|Benton Democrat]], to join them in a unanimous decision that Dred Scott remained a slave under Missouri law.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=60}} However, Judge Napton delayed writing the court's opinion for months. Then in August 1851, both Napton and Birch lost their seats in the Missouri Supreme Court, following the state's first supreme court election, with only Ryland remaining as an incumbent. The case thus needed to be considered again by the newly elected court.<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|page=135}} The reorganized Missouri Supreme Court now included two moderates – [[Hamilton Rowan Gamble|Hamilton Gamble]] and John Ryland – and one staunch proslavery justice, [[William Scott (Missouri judge)|William Scott]].<ref name=":3" />

David N. Hall had prepared the brief for Dred Scott but died in March 1851.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|pages=57, 61}} Alexander P. Field continued alone as counsel for Dred Scott, and resubmitted the same briefs from 1850 for both sides. On November 29, 1851, the case was taken under consideration, on written briefs alone, and a decision was reached.<ref name=":0" /> However, before Judge Scott could write the court's opinion, Lyman Norris, co-counsel for Irene Emerson, obtained permission to submit a new brief he had been preparing, to replace the original one submitted by Garland.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=56, 61}}

Norris's brief has been characterized as "a sweeping denunciation of the authority of both the [Northwest] Ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri Compromise."<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=62}} Although he stopped short of questioning their constitutionality, Norris questioned their applicability and criticized the early Missouri Supreme Court, ridiculing former Justice [[George Tompkins]] as "the great apostle of freedom at that day."<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":0" /> 

Reviewing the court's past decisions on freedom suits, Norris acknowledged that if ''Rachel v. Walker'' was allowed to stand, his client would lose.<ref name=":3" /> Norris then challenged the concept of "once free, always free", and asserted that the court under Tompkins had been wrong to rule that the Ordinance of 1787 remained in force after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788.<ref name=":3" /> Finally, he argued that the Missouri Compromise should be disregarded whenever it interfered with Missouri law, and that the laws of other states should not be enforced, if their enforcement would cause Missouri citizens to lose their property.<ref name=":3" /> In support of his argument, he cited Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's opinion in the United States Supreme Court case ''[[Strader v. Graham]]'', which argued that the status of a slave returning from a free state must be determined by the slave state itself.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=63}} According to historian Walter Ehrlich, the closing of Norris's brief was "a racist harangue that not only revealed the prejudices of its author, but also indicated how the ''Dred Scott'' case had become a vehicle for the expression of such views".<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=63}} Noting that Norris's proslavery "doctrines" were later incorporated into the court's final decision,<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=62}} Ehrlich writes (emphasis his):<blockquote>''From this point on, the'' Dred Scott ''case clearly changed from a genuine freedom suit to the controversial political issue for which it became infamous in American history.''<ref name=":0" /></blockquote>On March 22, 1852, Judge William Scott announced the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court that Dred Scott remained a slave, and ordered the trial court's judgment to be reversed.<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|page=137}} Judge Ryland concurred, while Chief Justice Hamilton Gamble dissented.<ref name=":3" /> The majority opinion written by Judge Scott focused on the issue of [[comity]] or [[Conflict of laws in the United States|conflict of laws]],<ref name=":1" /> and relied on [[states' rights]] rhetoric:<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=65}}<blockquote>Every State has the right of determining how far, in a spirit of comity, it will respect the laws of other States. Those laws have no intrinsic right to be enforced beyond the limits of the State for which they were enacted. The respect allowed them will depend altogether on their conformity to the policy of our institutions. No State is bound to carry into effect enactments conceived in a spirit hostile to that which pervades her own laws.<ref name=":5">{{cite web |title=Scott v. Emerson, 15 Mo. 576 (1852) |url=https://cite.case.law/mo/15/576/ |access-date=2022-04-01 |website=Caselaw Access Project, Harvard Law School}}</ref></blockquote>Judge Scott did not deny the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise and acknowledged that its prohibition of slavery was "absolute", but only within the specified territory. Thus, a slave crossing the border could obtain his freedom, but only within the court of the free state.<ref name=":0" /> Rejecting the court's own precedent, Scott argued that {{"'}}Once free' did not necessarily mean 'always free.{{'"}}<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=66}} He cited the Kentucky Court of Appeals decision in ''Graham v. Strader'', which had held that a Kentucky slaveowner who permitted a slave to go to Ohio temporarily, did not forfeit ownership of the slave.<ref name=":0" /> To justify overturning three decades of precedent, Judge Scott argued that circumstances had changed:<ref name=":1" /><blockquote>Times now are not 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 consequence 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.<ref name=":5" /></blockquote>On March 23, 1852, the day after the Missouri Supreme Court decision had been announced, Irene Emerson's lawyers filed an order in the St. Louis Circuit Court for the bonds signed by the Blow family to cover the Scotts' court costs; return of the slaves themselves; and transfer of their wages earned over four years, plus 6 percent interest.<ref name="Missouri Digital Heritage" /> On June 29, 1852, Judge Hamilton overruled the order.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=70}}

===''Scott v. Sanford''=== <!-- Should be SANFORD (not Sandford) here. The clerical error concerning Sanford's name occurred at the US Supreme Court, not at the US District Court. -->
The case looked hopeless, and the Blow family could no longer pay for Scott's legal costs. Scott also lost both of his lawyers when Alexander Field moved to Louisiana and David Hall died. The case was undertaken ''[[pro bono]]'' by [[Roswell Field]], who employed Scott as a janitor. Field also discussed the case with LaBeaume, who had taken over the lease on the Scotts in 1851.<ref name="Ehrlich 1968">{{cite journal |last=Ehrlich |first=Walter |title=Was the Dred Scott Case Valid? |journal=[[The Journal of American History]] |volume=55 |issue=2 |date=September 1968 |pages=256–265 |jstor=1899556 |publisher=Organization of American Historians|doi=10.2307/1899556 }}</ref> After the Missouri Supreme Court decision, Judge Hamilton turned down a request by Emerson's lawyers to release the rent payments from escrow and to deliver the slaves into their owner's custody.<ref name="Missouri Digital Heritage"/>

In 1853, Dred Scott again sued his current owner John Sanford, but this time in federal court. Sanford returned to New York and the federal courts had [[diversity jurisdiction]] under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. In addition to the existing complaints, Scott alleged that Sanford had assaulted his family and held them captive for six hours on January 1, 1853.<ref name="Hardy 2012">{{cite journal |last=Hardy |first=David T. |year=2012 |title=Dred Scott, John San(d)ford, and the Case for Collusion |journal=Northern Kentucky Law Review |volume=41 |issue=1 |url=http://chaselaw.nku.edu/content/dam/chaselaw/docs/academics/lawreview/v41/7-Hardy.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151010063026/http://chaselaw.nku.edu/content/dam/chaselaw/docs/academics/lawreview/v41/7-Hardy.pdf |archive-date=October 10, 2015}}</ref>

At trial in 1854, Judge [[Robert William Wells]] directed the jury to rely on Missouri law on the question of Scott's freedom. Since the Missouri Supreme Court had held that Scott remained a slave, the jury found in favor of Sanford. Scott then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the clerk misspelled the defendant's name, and the case was recorded as ''Dred Scott'' v. ''Sandford'', with an ever-erroneous title. Scott was represented before the Supreme Court by [[Montgomery Blair]] and [[George Ticknor Curtis]], whose brother [[Benjamin Robbins Curtis|Benjamin]] was a Supreme Court Justice. Sanford was represented by [[Reverdy Johnson]] and [[Henry S. Geyer]].<ref name="Missouri Digital Heritage"/>

===Sanford as defendant===
When the case was filed, the two sides agreed on a [[stipulation|statement of facts]] that claimed Scott had been sold by Dr. Emerson to John Sanford, though this was a [[legal fiction]]. Dr. Emerson had died in 1843, and Dred Scott had filed his 1847 suit against Irene Emerson. There is no record of Dred Scott's transfer to Sanford or of his transfer back to Irene. John Sanford died shortly before Scott's manumission, and Scott was not listed in the probate records of Sanford's estate.<ref name="Ehrlich 1968"/> Also, Sanford was not acting as Dr. Emerson's executor, as he was never appointed by a probate court, and the Emerson estate had been settled when the federal case was filed.{{sfnp|Finkelman|2007}}

The murky circumstances of ownership led many to conclude the parties to ''Dred Scott'' v. ''Sandford'' contrived to create a [[test case (law)|test case]].<ref name="Fehrenbacher 2001"/><ref name="Ehrlich 1968"/><ref name="Hardy 2012"/> Mrs. Emerson's remarriage to abolitionist U.S. Representative [[Calvin C. Chaffee]] seemed suspicious to contemporaries, and Sanford was thought to be a [[Front organization|front]] and to have allowed himself to be sued, despite not actually being Scott's owner. Nevertheless, Sanford had been involved in the case since 1847, before his sister married Chaffee. He had secured counsel for his sister in the state case, and he engaged the same lawyer for his own defense in the federal case.<ref name="Fehrenbacher 2001"/> Sanford also consented to be represented by genuine pro-slavery advocates before the Supreme Court, rather than to put up a token defense.

===Influence of President Buchanan===
Historians discovered that after the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case but before it issued a ruling, President-elect [[James Buchanan]] wrote to his friend, Supreme Court Associate Justice [[John Catron]], to ask whether the case would be decided by the Court before [[Inauguration of James Buchanan|his inauguration]] in March 1857.<ref name="isbn0-7006-1502-4">{{Cite book |last=Maltz|first=Earl M. |title=Dred Scott and the Politics of Slavery |publisher=University Press of Kansas |location=Lawrence |year=2007 |page=[https://archive.org/details/dredscottpolitic0000malt/page/115 115] |isbn=978-0700615025 |url=https://archive.org/details/dredscottpolitic0000malt/page/115 }}</ref> Buchanan hoped that the decision would quell unrest in the country over the slavery issue by issuing a ruling to take it out of political debate. He later successfully pressured Associate Justice [[Robert Cooper Grier]], a Northerner, to join the Southern majority in ''Dred Scott'' to prevent the appearance that the decision was made along sectional lines.<ref name="isbn0-13-195130-0">{{Cite book |author=Faragher, John Mack |title=Out of Many: A History of the American People |edition=4th (Rev. Printing) |publisher=Prentice Hall |location=Englewood Cliffs, N.J |year=2005 |page=[https://archive.org/details/outofmanytlccomb00john/page/388 388] |isbn=0131951300 |display-authors=etal |url=https://archive.org/details/outofmanytlccomb00john/page/388 }}</ref> According to historian [[Paul Finkelman]]:<blockquote> Buchanan already knew what the Court was going to decide. In a major breach of Court etiquette, Justice Grier, who, like Buchanan, was from Pennsylvania, had kept the President-elect fully informed about the progress of the case and the internal debates within the Court. When Buchanan urged the nation to support the decision, he already knew what Taney would say. Republican suspicions of impropriety turned out to be fully justified.<ref>Paul Finkelman, "''Scott v. Sandford'': The Court's Most Dreadful Case and How It Changed History." ''Chicago-Kent Law Review'', Vol. 82 (2007), pp. 3–48 at p. 46.</ref></blockquote>

Biographer [[Jean H. Baker]] argues that Buchanan's use of political pressure on a member of a sitting court was regarded then, as now, to be highly improper.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wQeVkzfTJcEC&pg=PA85|first=Jean H.|last=Baker |publisher=Times Books|year=2004|isbn=0-8050-6946-1|title=James Buchanan}}</ref> [[History of the Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]] fueled speculation as to Buchanan's influence by publicizing that Taney had secretly informed Buchanan of the decision. Buchanan declared in his inaugural address that the slavery question would "be speedily and finally settled" by the Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres30.html |title=James Buchanan: Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989 |publisher=Bartleby.com |access-date=July 26, 2012}}</ref>{{sfnp|Finkelman|2007}}