I recall from history class as an undergrad that Dred Scott had considerable help in bringing his suit. Specifically, I recall that his owner (new one, after the death of his old owner) was an abolitionist who helped Dred Scott bring his case for freedom. I ask because I recently read Henry S. Geyer coming under attack by a St. Louis Post-Dispatch column, and I recall that he fit in somewhere with this. The “owner” of Dred Scott, the man who helped Scott in his fight, should deserve credit for his role, and not be written off as just another “slaveowner”. So I’m wondering, who exactly was involved in this affair?
See “The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics” by Don Fehrenbacher for a thorough and well-written discussion of every conceivable aspect of the Dred Scott case, including this question. Fehrenbacher’s view, if I remember correctly, was that the belief you cite was erroneous and that Scott’s was a normal suit for freedom against an unwilling master.
The following discussion is all over the Web; Google for “Dred Scott parties”:
Scott’s suit against Sanford included charges of beatings and inhumane treatment; had Sanford’s defense been a sham, I think the case would have been thrown out at some point, because the court was certainly not eager to decide it. I have certainly seen assertions that Sanford was an abolitionist, but I think they are confusing Sanford with (1) Franklin B. Sanford, a prominent abolitionist; (2) Mrs. Emerson’s new husband, whose name I can’t find, who was also an abolitionist (I would guess that he was indirectly responsible for Sanford’s taking Scott). Henry S. Geyer was Sanford’s attorney, and I do not think he can be said to have been an abolitionist shill (!) The main assistance Scott received in his suit was not from his new owner, Sanford, but from the sons of his original owner, Peter Blow (who had sold him to Mr. Emerson). After losing the Supreme Court decision, Scott was purchased by the blow brothers and set free.
The Article which Nametag cites gives the impression that Fehrenbacher couldn’t decide which version of the case–genuine suit, abolitionist plot, or proslavery plot–was true. In fact Fehrenbacher cites the three possibilities, weighs the evidence, and then concludes that the suit was almost certainly genuine.
Nametag has already given some of the reasons. In addition, consider–suppose that Sandford was cooperating, and the suit really was ginned up by abolitionists to get slavery issues before the Supreme Court. Why would they have done that? What would they have had to gain? If the Court had found in Scott’s favor, they would have done so on narrow grounds of interstate comity with little impact on the broader antislavery movement. The potential for a groundbreaking ruling–invalidating the Missouri Compromise and denying African American citizenship–was entirely on the proslavery side.
Bottom line, let’s not nominate Scott’s master, or his master’s lawyer, as civil rights pioneers.
Didn’t the Supreme Court list the case as Dred Scott v. Sandford, putting an extra d in to the name?
FWIW, Dred Scott is buried in Calvary Cemetery in St. Louis.