of pro-slavery and anti-slavery.

140

Of course, the "mild" nature of the treatment of free blacks is a matter of perspective. It was mild
only with respect to the draconian strictures of the laws on the books and the proposals of
slaveowners, for the prejudice and restrictions facing the free black were quite apparent.
Nevertheless, the antebellum nineteenth century in Maryland provides an interesting illustration
of the difficulty of making the law on the books an effective reality.

III.      Dred Scott v Sandford: Race in American Law on the Eve of the Civil War

The frantic behavior of the slaveowners in pressing for more restrictive laws on race in
1859-60 in Maryland was a response to external forces as well as internal pressures. They saw
the world they cherished falling apart. For decades the divergent interests of the north and the
south in the federal union had been reconciled by a series of compromises, beginning with the
Missouri Compromise of 1820. But compromise to save the union no longer seemed possible.
One element in this situation was Dred Scott v. Sandford, a decision of the Supreme Court in a
case coming out of Missouri. The decision was intended to quiet national debate on slavery by
insulating the institution from national legislation. Instead, it served as the focus for charges of a
slave conspiracy in government that vitalized the Republican Party and threatened ultimately to
destabilize all existing arrangements.

Dred Scott was born a slave and resided for most of his life in Missouri. He accompanied
his master, Dr. Emerson, a surgeon in the United States military, on a tour of duty in Illinois, a
state that had abolished slavery. They later moved to an army post in the upper Louisiana
territory, a territory of the United States where slavery was prohibited by the Missouri
Compromise. After returning with Scott to Missouri, Emerson died. Scott brought a petition
for freedom against Emerson's widow in state court, claiming that residence in a free state and a
free territory made him a free man. The trial court granted his petition for freedom, basing its
decision on prior Missouri precedents. On appeal, however, the Missouri Supreme Court,
reacting to decisions of northern courts that had granted freedom to slaves traveling with their
masters in northern states, reversed its earlier decisions and held that slavery reattached if the
slave returned voluntarily to the state. Subsequently, Mrs. Emerson moved to Massachusetts and
remarried, leaving the administration of her husband's estate in the hands of her brother, John
Sanford of New York. This fact enabled Scott to bring a petition for freedom in federal court,
claiming diversity of citizenship. Sanford's attorneys filed a plea in abatement, claiming that
Scott was not a citizen, but the federal court sustained a demurrer to the plea and took
jurisdiction. Sanford then filed a plea of not guilty of trespass against Scott. The court directed a
verdict for Sanford on the grounds that Scott was still a slave under the applicable law.

57