NCJ Number
138964
Journal
University of Cincinnati Law Review Volume: 60 Issue: 3 Dated: (Winter 1992) Pages: 713-755
Date Published
1992
Length
43 pages
Annotation
Historians have generally misunderstood important aspects of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford and its State court precedessor, Scott v. Emerson; these cases involved the basic issue of whether a Missouri slave taken by his master into an area from which slavery had been excluded by the Missouri Compromise could be declared free.
Abstract
In order to understand the antebellum context of civil rights cases, the arguments forwarded by Scott's counsel and Supreme Court dissenters, and the exact nature and implications of the proslavery doctrine propounded by the Supreme Court majority, it is necessary to place the Dred Scott case in the proper framework of substantive and procedural law by paying particular attention to the legal doctrines of res judicata, Federal rules of decision, and the conflict of laws. Keeping in mind the proper antebellum context, the author shows, however, that the Dred Scott case did not involve the common postwar situation of the Supreme Court being asked to declare a State law unconstitutional due to conflict with a Federal statute (the Missouri Compromise). Rather, in an atmosphere of State sovereignty and equality in which the Federal Government had a limited role, each side in the dispute between North and South labored to develop doctrines in the sphere of the conflict of laws to advance sectional interests, while preserving the concept of State autonomy. 133 footnotes