The Dred Scott Case

Dred Scott was born a slave.  

At the end of the 18^th century, he was born in Southampton, Virginia, just 180 miles south of Washington D.C. He was an African, black, in his time openly called a Negro.

White Europeans had captured, enslaved and imported on ships millions of Africans to Europe and America. In the first quarter of the nineteenth century more than 100,000 slaves were brought to America alone. The conditions for transporting slaves on ships were abysmal. Many died before reaching the shores. The survivors spent the rest of their lives as slaves. Their children were slaves at birth, and without ever leaving America, could be slaves life-long.  

Slavery was accepted as part of life, particularly by the slave owners. Thomas Jefferson, President of the USA (1801-1809) authored the Declaration of Independence. He was inspired by the enlightenment ideals, the sanctity of an individual. Locke and Montesquieu were his favorite philosophers. The same man was a slavemaster who owned 600 Negro slaves. After Jefferson lost his wife, he began a relationship with one of the slaves and fathered six children from her. Of course, the six children lived as slaves. When Jefferson incurred heavy debts due to a lavish lifestyle, he offered his slaves as collateral to the creditors.

Dred Scott was the property of one Peter Blow. Scott was made to work on a farm, later at a boarding house. When he was thirty, Blow sold him to Dr Emerson, a surgeon. The new slavemaster was more distasteful than the earlier one. Dred Scott tried to run away, but was captured and enslaved again.

Dr Emerson worked with the US army. He moved places, and took his slaves along with him. When they moved to Wisconsin (today’s Minnesota), Scott married Harriet Robinson, another slave. Slave marriages had no legal sanction. Harriet’s owner transferred ownership to Dr Emerson, following which she, along with her husband, became Dr Emerson’s property.

Slaves could be sold, auctioned and rented as well. At times, Dr Emerson rented the couple to his friends or colleagues while he moved to another place. Renting slaves was a profitable business. When Dr Emerson married Eliza Sanford, he brought the Scotts back. Scotts had their first child on a boat, and named her Eliza in honour of their new mistress.

After Emerson’s death, his wife rented out Scotts for three years. In 1846, Dred Scott offered her 300 Dollars, his lifelong savings, a huge sum in those days, urging her to free him and his family. Eliza Sanford rejected the request.

The Scotts then launched a case to fight for their freedom. In the nineteenth century, slavery was not legal everywhere in America. There were 19 Free states and 13 Slave states. Living in a free state for a sufficiently long time entitled a slave to be a free person. The rule was ‘once free, always free’. Freedom was irrevocable.

Dred Scott’s owners had taken his family to the Missouri territory, which was “free”. They had lived and worked there for a few years. When the owners brought them back to a slave state, the Scott family sued them. By virtue of spending years in a free state, Scott should have been a free man, his family a free family. It was a clear cut case. Based on the facts, any court could have decided the issue quickly in Scott’s favour.

It took four years for the trial to begin. During that time, the Scott family was placed in the custody of a county Sheriff. The Sheriff continued to lease out their services as slaves. The initial case was launched by Dred Scott in 1846. The US Supreme Court gave the final verdict eleven years later, on 6 March 1857.

The Supreme Court said Dred Scott, a black man, was not, and could not be a citizen of the USA. Accordingly he had no right to launch a case. The Supreme Court could discuss, consider and evaluate cases only of American citizens. The majority verdict went against the Scott family.

This is what the USA Supreme Court said: “the question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the constitution of the United States? And as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges and immunities guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen? (Dred Scott, 60 U.S. 403)

We think… that black people are not included and were not intended to be included under the word “citizens” in the constitution. … they were considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them. (Dred Scott, 60 U.S. 404-05)

Now… the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution…. Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the act of congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind… is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void. (Dred Scott, 60 U.S. 451-52)

In its judgment, the Supreme Court talked about the Fifth Amendment. Dred Scott and his family was their owner’s property. It was the duty of the judges to preserve the rights of the property owner.

*****

This month, the Dred Scott case was mentioned by a UK lawyer arguing against Boris Johnson’s government. Johnson, UK’s prime minister at the time of writing this article, suspended the British parliament for five weeks. This was to enable the government bulldoze its way towards Brexit, a never-ending national crisis. Technically, the UK government was within its powers. The High Court in London had chickened out and said the case was not justiciable, meaning this was a matter for the politicians and not the courts.

 Across the world, several judges think interpreting the law as their basic function. They give excessive weight to the letter, not the spirit. This is cowardice. Dred Scott fought in the US Supreme court to gain freedom, not to learn he was disqualified to launch a case. (In 2017, India’s Supreme Court denied a woman her abortion right. The foetus was diagnosed with the Down syndrome. The judges relied on the existing letter of law. Five years before that, an Indian doctor died in Ireland due to the anti-abortion laws. You can read those two cases here.)  

People go to the courts to demand justice, not interpretation of words. Judges are not dictionaries or translators. They can simply be human, and offer judgments based on what is right and what is wrong.

*****

Fortunately for the UK, and for the civil world, the UK supreme court headed by the strong lady Hale, delivered a unanimous verdict against the UK government. In R(Miller) vs the Prime Minister, suspending parliament was termed unlawful. The court made the suspension void.

This week’s UK Supreme Court verdict was a victory for the spirit of justice.

Ravi