Jeff is right that once a court finds is has no jurisdiction the case is over, but he is wrong in holding that Scott could not sue because he was a slave; the Supreme Court heard many cases in which slaves were parties (including one a year or two after this, in U.S. v. Amy). Taney explicitly says that Scott cannot sue because he is black.
Every slave state court allowed freedom suits based on the pleading that the plaintiff was actually free, even though held as a slave. The court accepted the claim of freedom to allow the suit to go forward; if in the end the case was decided in favor or the plaintiff -- that is it was held that the slave plaintiff was actually entitled to freedom -- then the court found a judgment against the own and the person went free. If the court decided the person was still a slave then the case was dismissed.
This was the process in Dred Scott's case. Thus, Taney could not hold that Scott could not sue because he was a slave, because that was precisely what the court had to determine. However, by holding that a black, EVEN IF FREE, could not sue as a citizen in federal court, Taney never had to decide if Scott was free or not. Thus, the case turns on race, and rather than a "rant" as described below, Taney actually gives a very long historical argument as to why free blacks could not be citizens. It is racist and unpleasant to read. But it is a pretty accurate statement of race and law at the founding -- except of course that it ignores all the counter evidence -- such that blacks voted in 6 states at the founding and so they must have been citizens.
But all the debate in the court is over race, NOT slavery. No one on the court thought a slave was a citizen and it that is what the Court had held no one would care about the case today.
----
Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, NY 12208
518-445-3386 (p)
518-445-3363 (f)
[log in to unmask]
www.paulfinkelman.com
________________________________
From: Jeff Southmayd <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Dred Scott decision -- Procedure for anyone who cares -- is is important to understand the cas
Scott was not a free Black. He was a slave. It's true that after Taney found the SCOTUS did not have jurisdication in the case, as well as the lower court, he went on a race rant. But it was really irrelevant to the ultimate decision which dealt with jurisdication. Once a court finds it lacks jurisdication, everything after that isn't worth the paper it is written on....as in this case.
JDS
SOUTHMAYD & MILLER
4 OCEAN RIDGE BOULEVARD SOUTH
PALM COAST, FLORIDA 32137
386.445.9156
888.557.3686 FAX
[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************
THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE ADDRESSEE SHOWN ABOVE. IT MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE DO NOT READ, COPY, OR USE IT, AND DO NOT DISCLOSE IT TO OTHERS. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER OF THE DELIVERY ERROR BY REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE AND THEN DELETE IT FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.
********************************************************
> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:33:36 +0000
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Dred Scott decision -- Procedure for anyone who cares -- is is important to understand the cas
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Actually, just to clarify and to correct errors asserted below.
>
> Scott sued Emerson in Missouri state court. He won at the jury trial level in 1850.
> In Scott v. Emerson (1852) the Missouri Supreme Court overturned that result. This ENDED the case in Missouri. He remained a slave.
>
> In 1854 Scott's new lawyer (Field) initiated an entirely new case in US Circuit Court for Missouri, this time again Sanford. Because Sanford was living in New York, it was filed "in diversity" between citizens of two different states. In that case Sanford filed a plea in abatement arguing that as a black Scott could not be a citizen of Missouri. The federal judge ruled IF Scott was free he could sue in diversity, but then held against Scott.
>
> Scott appealed to US Supreme Court (Scott v. Sandford) which was argued in early 1856 and then reargued at the next term and decided in March 1857. Taney held no black could ever sue in diversity and hence the case was "dismissed for want of jurisdiction." That meant the only final judicial decision was the state court decision of 1852 holding Scott to be a slave.
>
> Mr. Southmayd on two points below.
>
> First, Taney did not hold that Scott could not sue because he was a slave or property. He does not say "slaves were not citizens" as Southmayd asserts. Rather, Taney said that "blacks" could not sue even if they were free people. He asserts that even in Massachusetts, Vermont, or other states where blacks could vote (and hold office) they could not be citizens of the United States and thus could not sue in diversity. The decision is based on race, not slavery. In other words, even if Scott were free he had no access to the federal courts.
>
> Second, the case was hardly "embraced by most American citizens, with the exception of those relatively few abolitionists that existed at the time." It was denounced across the North by many people I (like Lincoln) who were not abolitionists. Indeed, as Don Fehrenbacher showed in his Pulitzer Prize winning book on the subject, the reaction to the case was a huge boon to the Republican Party.
>
>
>
> *************************
> Paul Finkelman
> John Hope Franklin Visiting Professor of American Legal History
> Duke University School of Law
> 210 Science Drive
> Box 90360
> Durham, NC 27708-0360
>
> 919-613-7038 (o)
> 518-605-0296 (c)
>
> [log in to unmask]
> www.paulfinkelman.com
>
> ********************
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jeff Southmayd
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:51 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Dred Scott decision
>
> I think there is some confusion on the procedural basis for the Supreme Courts decision.
> When an action is brought to a Federal court out of a state court, or in a state court alleging a dispute between two "citizens" (as was done in this
> case) you have to set out the grounds
> for Federal jurisdiction. In this case
> Scott's lawyer averred that Scott was a citizen of Missouri and that Sandford, under whose authority it was alleged Scott was illegally being held in slavery, was a citizen of New York. Hence, it was argued there was a "controversy between citizens of the different states" making the case ripe for both state and Federal judicial review.
>
>
> Taney's decision merely found that that the trial court erred in exercising jurisdiction since slaves were not citizens in a constitutional sense (no question about that fact) and a non-citizen could not sue a citizen in either state of Federal court.
> There was a long line of precedent to support that finding. In other words, a cow, wagon or other
> personal property lacked standing to file and prosecute any form of law suit against an American citizen. Nothing very surprising about that conclusion.
>
>
> The rest of the Taney decision was essentially dicta that really didn't matter, except it was enthusiastically embraced by most American citizens, with the exception of those relatively few abolitionists that existed at the time. Thus, when the Dred Scott opinion was issued March 6, 1857, the U.S. Congress had thousands of copies of the opinion printed up and distributed to the public at its expense.
> JDS
>
>
>
> SOUTHMAYD & MILLER4 OCEAN RIDGE BOULEVARD SOUTH PALM COAST, FLORIDA 32137
> 386.445.9156
> 888.557.3686 FAX
>
> [log in to unmask]
> **********************************************************
> THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE ADDRESSEE SHOWN ABOVE. IT MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE DO NOT READ, COPY, OR USE IT, AND DO NOT DISCLOSE IT TO OTHERS. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER OF THE DELIVERY ERROR BY REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE AND THEN DELETE IT FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.
> ********************************************************
>
> > Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:36:17 -0500
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Dred Scott decision
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > You have somewhat clarified the Dred Scott decision, yet muddied it up at the same time. I will leave it to others to dissect your take on it. I wish only to address this statement:
> >
> > On Dec 15, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Finkelman, Paul <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > First Missouri was a slave state. Period. Its Senators and Congressmen voted with the deep south on most issues; it laws persecuted free blacks (like other slave states) and abolitionists risked mobs or prosecution for opposing slavery. In 1860 there were 115,000 slaves in Missouri. Why Mr. Adams would think (in a previous post) Missouri was not a slave state is beyond my comprehension.
> >
> > Indeed, Missouri was slave state, and had been since it admittance the Union, as was of course one half of the "Missouri Compromise" in 1820. It did indeed vote to secede from the Union, though its convention voted pro-Union and the legislature and Governor soon fled the capital under General Lyon's union troops. That perhaps is another story. But like it or not, the 13th star in the Confederate flag was for Missouri. But only in a symbolic way.. And I digress, except to say Missouri had its own civil war, and had more battles than the entire South combined. It was a very ugly affair.
> >
> > That aside, I wish to address this part of your statement:
> >
> > "it laws persecuted free blacks (like other slave states) and abolitionists risked mobs or prosecution for opposing slavery."
> >
> > Where on earth do you come up with that? "Risked mobs?" What are you smoking?
> >
> > Mob scenes maybe. But it was the Union army shooting down the pro-Southern "mobs" at the outbreak of the Civil War. Not the other way around.
> >
> > Please, if you may, enlighten me on my Missouri history.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Craig Kilby
> > Native Missourian
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________
> > To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the
> > instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
