Through the Eyes of Lincoln: The Dred Scott Decision

Under Lincoln’s leadership, the Civil War was fought to keep a fragile, broken Union together. The Emancipation Proclamation was written to gear the war towards ending slavery, and the monumental Thirteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution, freeing all people in America who were previously enslaved.  But Lincoln’s influence did not start as President; since his youth he had always been vocal and pointed on the political issues of his time. As an aspiring lawyer, Lincoln offered a unique perspective to his political thought, characterized by an astute knowledge of the law. No instance exemplifies this idea more than the Dred Scott case followed by Lincoln’s memorable speech denouncing the atrocious nature of this ruling, yet affirming his belief in the American legal system. From his speech, one can clearly recognize that Lincoln believed that the legal system was a self-repairing entity, and that even with a grievous upset such as the ruling in Dred Scott, one must trust and rely on the legal system over time to reverse such decisions and to preserve integrity of the law.

Background

Lincoln was raised with a negative attitude toward slavery. His father, Thomas Lincoln, was a Whig and a critic of slavery due to its negative economic implications for free whites looking for work. Abraham Lincoln declared a similar stance, but it instead focused on slavery as a moral evil [1]. He believed that the framers of the Constitution treated slavery as a “necessity” that they knew would die out. Lincoln retained this same belief and became a proponent of the Anti-Slavery movement, which accepted that if slavery was contained and was not allowed to spread, it would eventually become obsolete [2].

However, in the mid 1800’s, Democrats were keen on seeing slavery’s expansion throughout the United States. In 1820, the Missouri Compromise was passed largely due to Henry Clay, Lincoln’s political idol. This prohibited the spread of slavery into any US state or territory above the 36° 30’ line of latitude [3]. However, it was eventually repealed by the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854 proposed by Stephen Douglas, a Northern Democrat and Lincoln’s political rival, which allowed for popular sovereignty in each territory to determine whether slavery would exist within its borders [4]. This expansion and validification of slavery would further be excaberated by the ruling in the Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sandford.

Dred Scott v. Sandford

Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia and was moved to free territories including Wisconsin and the State of Illinois before becoming a long-term resident of Missouri. Although Missouri was a slave state, there were two statutes that worked to Scott’s advantage: an 1825 statute allowed a person of color to sue if he or she was wrongfully enslaved, and another stated that if a slave went to a free state, the slave was then automatically freed [5]. These laws contributed to a “once free, always free” policy in the Missouri Courts, where enslaved people could sue for and often gain their freedom.  

Dred Scott argued this in a Missouri court, and the court ruled in favor of Scott, granting him his freedom. However, the Sandford family who owned Scott then appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, which ultimately sided with the Sandfords due to a writ of error. Eventually, Scott made an appeal to the United States Supreme Court [6].

The Supreme Court also ruled in favor of Sandford. Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote the majority opinion of the court's decision. The court decided that the Constitution enforced the right of slavery in that it did not establish an enslaved person as a citizen, but instead as a property. As a result, slaves were not allowed the privileges that free citizens had, including the right to sue in court. Furthermore, since property was a right guaranteed on the Federal level by the Constitution, the court stated that slaves do not gain their freedom when taken to a free territory, deeming Missouri’s “once free, always free” policy unconstitutional. More significantly, this rendered the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional, since it would then be impossible to barr slavery from the free states and territories [7]. The ruling then resulted in a national uproar with abolitionists fired up, a war on the horizon, and a passionate condemnation of the case by then-representative Lincoln.

Lincoln’s Response to the Dred Scott Case and Attitude Toward the American Legal System

Lincoln condemned and decried the Dred Scott decision. It directly went against his beliefs on the containment and morality of slavery, undoing the very Missouri Compromise Lincoln believed would lead to the death of slavery. Lincoln turned to the Declaration of Independence, arguing that all people, not just whites, deserve the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that are hailed as unalienable rights, and that the ruling of Dred Scott v. Sandford shattered this noble vision.  Lincoln even fiercely declared that “the Democrats deny [a slave’s] manhood; deny, or dwarf to insignificance, the wrong of his bondage; so far as possible, crush all sympathy for him… and call the indefinite outspreading of his bondage ‘a sacred right to self-government [8].’’' To Lincoln, the ruling in the Dred Scott case served to further strip enslaved people of their humanity and validate the evil of slavery.

Although Lincoln vehemently protested this ruling, he also expressed his strong belief in the principles of the United States legal system. He not only emphasized his “respect for the judicial department of government” but also explained how the American legal system is an entity of self-repair. He pointed out how the court has overruled decisions that have been made in the past, and how under only special circumstances, such as the “unanimous concurrence of the judges”, that a case would become precedent. He believed that due to this fact, the Dred Scott decision had not “yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country [9].” Lincoln pointed out an important characteristic of the American legal system, that it is based on patterns and repetition rather than single rulings. An upset, however monumental, would not result in a drastic destruction or souring of legal precedent, since a single law or ruling cannot establish what is right and just in the long run. This is indeed true with the Dred Scott case, which never became precedent and was instead overturned by the addition of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution [10]. It suggests that the legal system has the power to constantly correct itself of any upsets to ensure the integrity and righteousness of the law.

Lincoln implored supporters that, no matter how much they despised the Dred Scott ruling, to “offer no resistance to it” and to trust in the United States’ system of justice [11]. The justice system has many different contributing factors, including the courts, Congress, and the citizens who vote for representatives. Real legal changes take time, and these changes have to endure many different individuals in many branches of government to pass the test of time and become precedent. At the same time, in the spirit of Lincoln’s beliefs, it is important to have faith in the American legal system’s self-correctional capabilities and believe that the integrity of the law, despite short-term upsets, will endure in the long run.

David Vojtaskovic is a first-year who plans to study Economics and History. He is a Staff Writer for the Law Review's Blog and can be reached at david_vojtaskovic@brown.edu.