Remembering Dred Scott-150 Years Later
Remembering Dred Scott - 150 Years Later
Chief Justice Roger Taney’s stature in the law was not diminished because of his opinion in Scott v. Sandford which constitutionalized the inferiority of Africans and, therefore, made them ineligible for the constitutional protections of citizenship. Instead, the owners of Africans, as chattel, enjoyed the constitutional protections of private property.
The American Bar Association ranked him as one of the “greats” of the law with jurists like John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis D. Brandeis. When law professors were asked, in 1972, to list the top justices of the Supreme Court, Taney made the list. A similar study ,in 1983, also listed Taney as one of the top justices of the High Court.
Taney was from Maryland. His wife, Anne Key, was the sister of Francis Scott Key who authored “The Star Spangled Banner.” Taney would eventually enroll in Andrew Jackson’s Democratic Party which has now captured descendants of enslaved Africans. Taney would become attorney general of Maryland and, later, attorney general of the United States.
When President Jackson appointed Taney to supplant Chief Justice John Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court, critics described Taney as a “political hack.” Marshall had described the Cherokee Nation as a “domestic, dependent nation.”
Whites had found gold in Georgia and were seeking the Cherokees’ removal.
A year later, Marshall, in Worcester v. Georgia, would recognize the sovereign authority of the Cherokees. Jackson would ignore the court’s ruling and enforce the removal of the Cherokees to Indian territory. Many Cherokees perished during the “Trial of Tears.” Jackson simply, trashed all prior treaties.
The Cherokees had sought to establish a government based on the government of the United States and had enslaved Africans. They embraced European culture and education. Today, it is not surprising that the Cherokee Nation would hold a referendum on the admission of Africans into the Cherokee Nation.
Jackson had an aversion to Indians. He similarly had an aversion to Africans despite their military prowess which enhanced his political career. During the Battle of New Orleans, in 1815, which was the last battle of the war, he was only able to encourage an untrained group of Africans to stand with him against the British. During the battle, the Africans inflicted 2000 casualties to the British and only suffered 16 casualties.
Taney had been put on the Supreme Court to protect state power under the rubric of states’ rights. When Dred Scott and his wife, Harriet, sued for their freedom, Missouri had embraced the “once free, always free” principle. Scott sued because he had accompanied his slaveowner to the free state of Illinois and the free Wisconsin territory. Thus, Missouri freed Scott.
If Scott had walked away without his wages, which were being held in escrow, Scott may have remained anonymous in history. Instead, he insisted on compensation. His insistence on compensation influenced the Missouri Supreme Court to overturn all of its legal precedents and consign Scott and his wife back into slavery.
Scott initiated a federal lawsuit based on diversity of citizenship to challenge Missouri’s new definition of slavery. The slaveowner resided in New York. The Constitution allows for two citizens residing in different states to invoke federal jurisdiction. A diversity claim is permitted to eliminate local bias.
Sandford’s lawyers claimed that Scott lacked the capacity to sue in federal court since he was not a citizen. His lawyers also challenged the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. Congress was unable to abolish slavery in the new territories since enslaved Africans were private property of slaveowners who enjoyed constitutional protection. In short, they argued that Scott had never been free.
Dred Scott is best known by Taney’s dictum: “No Negro has any rights that whites are bound to respect.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines “dictum” as follows: “A judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case.”
Taney raised this question: “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 the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by that instrument to the citizens?
Based on the “original intent” construction of the Constitution, Taney unequivocally, and with an exclamation point, said no. Taney said that Africans were inferior beings and subject to the authority of the dominant race. No intent was ever expressed, in the U.S. Constitution, for Africans to be considered “citizens” according to Taney.
New York Connection
New York was a pro-slavery state before the Civil War and President Abraham Lincoln had to keep his eye on New York. During the Civil War, Union forces had to fight one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War in New York City. Mayor Fernando Wood, the city’s leading Copperhead, was the chief defender of slavery. The city depended on the cotton trade and New York was in the Democratic column. It was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
The majority of the Supreme Court justices, before the Civil War, were from the South. There were ‘doughfaces” on the Court, however. They were Northerners who were protecting southern interests. Justice Samuel Nelson of New York wrote a concurring opinion in Dred Scott. He was a Jacksonian Democrat and supported slavery.
Dred Scott sought to invoke diversity jurisdiction by claiming, that although state law was in question, the parties were citizens of different states. While Scott resided in Missouri, the opposing party was John F.A. Sandford who was the executor of Dr. John Emerson. Sandford resided in New York.
Scott had travelled with Emerson to the free state of Illinois and to Fort Snelling in the Missouri territory. This travel had enabled Scott to invoke a doctrine which had been crafted by Lord Mansfield in Somerset v. Stewart in 1772. An enslaved African who had touched English soil must be freed.
The “founding fathers” would take notice of this doctrine fifteen years later in crafting Article IV of the Constitution which requires free states to return enslaved Africans back to their masters. Congress would enact the Fugitive Slave Law.
To avoid this possibility, many enslaved Africans had to continue on to Canada and beyond the long arm of American jurisprudence. In this situation, Taney would elevate federalism over states’ rights. The Constitution would criminalize any African who sought or who became an advocate for freedom.
The U.S. Constitution failed to define citizenship. It was the unwritten law before Dred Scott that neither Africans nor Indians were citizens. Dred Scott made it clear that this country was a white man’s government.
In other words, citizenship was based, in part, on the doctrine of jus sanquinis which would be defined as the right of “white blood.” coupled with the rule of implied jus sol which means the right of land. A drop of Black blood would spoil the party. The Black struggle made some cosmetic changes in the Constitution and opened the door to non-white immigration.
Taney’s Agenda
Chief Justice Roger Taney was wickedly great and was obsessed with the intractable belief of Negro inferiority. The U.s. Constitution made no specific reference to slavery but incorporated several provisions to sustain it. Taney sought to give a definitive definition to slavery through judicial decisions.
Scott v. Sandford was a dream for Taney. A person of African ancestry was seeking federal jurisdiction by claiming diversity o citizenship. The Constitution lacked a definition of citizenship. Since diversity of citizenship invokes state law, Taney could counsel other states on states’ rights since Scott was questioning Missouri law. In other words, he could limit the powers of Congress which created the Missouri Compromise.
Taney’s intent was to not only to nationalize slavery but also to rule out any loopholes for Africans like those classified as “free Blacks.” There would be no free soil in the United States. Taney, through dictum, asserted, “no Negro has any rights that whites are bound to respect.”
Enslaved Africans were under the jurisdiction of their slaveowners but all Africans were subject to the whims of any white person. Thus, no African could enjoy any legal protections. The absence of legal protections continued after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Taney is listed a one of the “greats” of American jurisprudence and Dred Scott is the most important Supreme Court decision in defining Black-white relationships. Dred Scott looms over the head of any judge who must decide the fate of a person of African ancestry.
The petit jury received the Dred Scott instruction in Amadou Diallo and the grand jury will receive the same Dred Scott instruction in Sean Bell et. al. Gov. George Pataki apparently became irate when he suspected that it had not been given to the grand jury in Amadou Diallo. He dismissed the Black female judge and removed the case to Albany County so that he could keep an eye on it.
Chief Justice Roger Taney’s stature in the law was not diminished because of his opinion in Scott v. Sandford which constitutionalized the inferiority of Africans and, therefore, made them ineligible for the constitutional protections of citizenship. Instead, the owners of Africans, as chattel, enjoyed the constitutional protections of private property.
The American Bar Association ranked him as one of the “greats” of the law with jurists like John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis D. Brandeis. When law professors were asked, in 1972, to list the top justices of the Supreme Court, Taney made the list. A similar study ,in 1983, also listed Taney as one of the top justices of the High Court.
Taney was from Maryland. His wife, Anne Key, was the sister of Francis Scott Key who authored “The Star Spangled Banner.” Taney would eventually enroll in Andrew Jackson’s Democratic Party which has now captured descendants of enslaved Africans. Taney would become attorney general of Maryland and, later, attorney general of the United States.
When President Jackson appointed Taney to supplant Chief Justice John Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court, critics described Taney as a “political hack.” Marshall had described the Cherokee Nation as a “domestic, dependent nation.”
Whites had found gold in Georgia and were seeking the Cherokees’ removal.
A year later, Marshall, in Worcester v. Georgia, would recognize the sovereign authority of the Cherokees. Jackson would ignore the court’s ruling and enforce the removal of the Cherokees to Indian territory. Many Cherokees perished during the “Trial of Tears.” Jackson simply, trashed all prior treaties.
The Cherokees had sought to establish a government based on the government of the United States and had enslaved Africans. They embraced European culture and education. Today, it is not surprising that the Cherokee Nation would hold a referendum on the admission of Africans into the Cherokee Nation.
Jackson had an aversion to Indians. He similarly had an aversion to Africans despite their military prowess which enhanced his political career. During the Battle of New Orleans, in 1815, which was the last battle of the war, he was only able to encourage an untrained group of Africans to stand with him against the British. During the battle, the Africans inflicted 2000 casualties to the British and only suffered 16 casualties.
Taney had been put on the Supreme Court to protect state power under the rubric of states’ rights. When Dred Scott and his wife, Harriet, sued for their freedom, Missouri had embraced the “once free, always free” principle. Scott sued because he had accompanied his slaveowner to the free state of Illinois and the free Wisconsin territory. Thus, Missouri freed Scott.
If Scott had walked away without his wages, which were being held in escrow, Scott may have remained anonymous in history. Instead, he insisted on compensation. His insistence on compensation influenced the Missouri Supreme Court to overturn all of its legal precedents and consign Scott and his wife back into slavery.
Scott initiated a federal lawsuit based on diversity of citizenship to challenge Missouri’s new definition of slavery. The slaveowner resided in New York. The Constitution allows for two citizens residing in different states to invoke federal jurisdiction. A diversity claim is permitted to eliminate local bias.
Sandford’s lawyers claimed that Scott lacked the capacity to sue in federal court since he was not a citizen. His lawyers also challenged the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. Congress was unable to abolish slavery in the new territories since enslaved Africans were private property of slaveowners who enjoyed constitutional protection. In short, they argued that Scott had never been free.
Dred Scott is best known by Taney’s dictum: “No Negro has any rights that whites are bound to respect.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines “dictum” as follows: “A judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case.”
Taney raised this question: “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 the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by that instrument to the citizens?
Based on the “original intent” construction of the Constitution, Taney unequivocally, and with an exclamation point, said no. Taney said that Africans were inferior beings and subject to the authority of the dominant race. No intent was ever expressed, in the U.S. Constitution, for Africans to be considered “citizens” according to Taney.
New York Connection
New York was a pro-slavery state before the Civil War and President Abraham Lincoln had to keep his eye on New York. During the Civil War, Union forces had to fight one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War in New York City. Mayor Fernando Wood, the city’s leading Copperhead, was the chief defender of slavery. The city depended on the cotton trade and New York was in the Democratic column. It was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
The majority of the Supreme Court justices, before the Civil War, were from the South. There were ‘doughfaces” on the Court, however. They were Northerners who were protecting southern interests. Justice Samuel Nelson of New York wrote a concurring opinion in Dred Scott. He was a Jacksonian Democrat and supported slavery.
Dred Scott sought to invoke diversity jurisdiction by claiming, that although state law was in question, the parties were citizens of different states. While Scott resided in Missouri, the opposing party was John F.A. Sandford who was the executor of Dr. John Emerson. Sandford resided in New York.
Scott had travelled with Emerson to the free state of Illinois and to Fort Snelling in the Missouri territory. This travel had enabled Scott to invoke a doctrine which had been crafted by Lord Mansfield in Somerset v. Stewart in 1772. An enslaved African who had touched English soil must be freed.
The “founding fathers” would take notice of this doctrine fifteen years later in crafting Article IV of the Constitution which requires free states to return enslaved Africans back to their masters. Congress would enact the Fugitive Slave Law.
To avoid this possibility, many enslaved Africans had to continue on to Canada and beyond the long arm of American jurisprudence. In this situation, Taney would elevate federalism over states’ rights. The Constitution would criminalize any African who sought or who became an advocate for freedom.
The U.S. Constitution failed to define citizenship. It was the unwritten law before Dred Scott that neither Africans nor Indians were citizens. Dred Scott made it clear that this country was a white man’s government.
In other words, citizenship was based, in part, on the doctrine of jus sanquinis which would be defined as the right of “white blood.” coupled with the rule of implied jus sol which means the right of land. A drop of Black blood would spoil the party. The Black struggle made some cosmetic changes in the Constitution and opened the door to non-white immigration.
Taney’s Agenda
Chief Justice Roger Taney was wickedly great and was obsessed with the intractable belief of Negro inferiority. The U.s. Constitution made no specific reference to slavery but incorporated several provisions to sustain it. Taney sought to give a definitive definition to slavery through judicial decisions.
Scott v. Sandford was a dream for Taney. A person of African ancestry was seeking federal jurisdiction by claiming diversity o citizenship. The Constitution lacked a definition of citizenship. Since diversity of citizenship invokes state law, Taney could counsel other states on states’ rights since Scott was questioning Missouri law. In other words, he could limit the powers of Congress which created the Missouri Compromise.
Taney’s intent was to not only to nationalize slavery but also to rule out any loopholes for Africans like those classified as “free Blacks.” There would be no free soil in the United States. Taney, through dictum, asserted, “no Negro has any rights that whites are bound to respect.”
Enslaved Africans were under the jurisdiction of their slaveowners but all Africans were subject to the whims of any white person. Thus, no African could enjoy any legal protections. The absence of legal protections continued after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Taney is listed a one of the “greats” of American jurisprudence and Dred Scott is the most important Supreme Court decision in defining Black-white relationships. Dred Scott looms over the head of any judge who must decide the fate of a person of African ancestry.
The petit jury received the Dred Scott instruction in Amadou Diallo and the grand jury will receive the same Dred Scott instruction in Sean Bell et. al. Gov. George Pataki apparently became irate when he suspected that it had not been given to the grand jury in Amadou Diallo. He dismissed the Black female judge and removed the case to Albany County so that he could keep an eye on it.
posted by Attorney Alton Maddox at 6:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home