Imagine it is 1857, and you have just been told that you are not worthy of your freedom or national citizenship despite having resided in free states for years due to your skin color. For a man by the name of Dred Scott, this was his reality.
Many Constitutional scholars refer to the Dred Scott Decision as one of the worst decisions ever made by the US Supreme Court; to this day, it remains a dark stain on US history.
Dred Scott Decision Definition
The Dred Scott Decision, also known as Scott vs. Sandford, was a key case regarding the issue of slavery in the US. As a case that initially sought freedom for only Scott and his family, its final decision influenced a much bigger movement- one for the freedom of all enslaved African Americans. The case played an important role in the rise of Abolitionism and at the beginning of the Civil War in 1861.
Dred Scott, circa 1857Wikimedia Commons
Dred Scott Decision Summary
Around 1799, Dred Scott was born in Southampton County, Virginia. In 1818, he was "purchased" by his first owner, Peter Blow, in Alabama. By the 1830s, Scott had moved with Blow to St. Louis, Missouri, where Blow ran a boarding house until he died in 1832.
Did you know?
States during this time were separated between "free" and "slave" states. The Missouri Compromise was a line that ran from East to West on the 36th parallel and divided the country into equal amounts of "free" and "slave" states. Slavery was officially banned anywhere North or West of this line.
Map of the Missouri Compromise Line
Red = "Slave" States, Blue = "Free" States", Grey = Unorganized territory, Green = Missouri Comp. Line Wikimedia Commons
Upon Blow's death, Scott was purchased by Dr. John Emerson, a US army physician who brought Scott along with him into two free territories; the state of Illinois and the territory of Wisconsin.
While in the North, Dred Scott met and married a woman (who was also enslaved) by the name of Harriet Robinson. Robinson's enslaver would transfer ownership soon after their marriage, and the two would later start a family.
In late 1837, Emerson would leave Dred and Harriet behind to be hired out while he went to Louisiana. While in the South, Emerson met and married a woman by the name of Eliza (Irene) Sandford in 1838. Dred and Harriet would reunite with the couple in Wisconsin in October of that year.
In 1842, the US Military formally discharged Emerson, when he then took his family as well as Scott's back to St. Louis. Once moving here, the family struggled with finding success and soon moved on to the state of Iowa. It is unclear during this time if Scott and his family joined them or stayed behind.
Emerson died suddenly in 1843, leaving Dred and his wife to Irene. At this time, Scott attempted to buy their freedom multiple times; sadly, Irene always refused.
Wood carving of Dred Scott and Harriet Scott US Library of Congress
The Court Cases Begin
Dred and Harriet eventually decided to file separate lawsuits for their freedom in 1846 through the St. Louis Circuit Court against Irene Emerson based on two Missouri statutes.
- The two Missouri statutes:
- The first allowed any person, of any color, to sue for wrongful enslavement.
- The second stated that any person brought into free territories automatically became free and could not be re-enslaved upon returning to a slave state.
During the first trial on June 30th, 1847, the court ruled against them due to a minor technicality but granted them a retrial.
In the second trial, along with the help of their church, abolitionists, and even their former enslavers, the Blow family, Dred and Harriet, were able to receive financial and logistical support (as they could not read or write). At the end of the trial in 1850, Scott and Harriet won their freedom.
Unfortunately, in 1852, Irene appealed the case to the Missouri Supreme Court, successfully overturning the last decision and once again enslaving Scott and his family.
Dred Scott Supreme Court Decision
Officially titled Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sanford (as Irene's ownership had been transferred to her brother), Chief Justice Roger B. Taney was the man in charge of taking Scott's case when it reached the Supreme Court in 1857. Upon reviewing the case, Taney made a terrible decision, ruling that because Scott was someone's property and not a citizen, he was not legally allowed to sue.
- First, Taney began by stating that Congress had no power to forbid slavery from
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
US Library of Congress
any territory, meaning that even though Scott resided in two free territories, he belonged to Emerson the entire time. This idea completely disregarded the Missouri Comprise of 1820. To the Supreme Court, no one had the right to declare the authority to ban slavery in any US territory. - Secondly, Taney also refused to accept the idea of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, a proposal by Stephen A. Douglas that stated territories had the right to decide for themselves whether slavery was allowed on their soil. Hence, this defense was also struck down by the court.
- Lastly, Taney blatantly ignored articles of the US Constitution. Article IV, Section 2 reads that if a person is considered a citizen in one state, they are granted "all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in several states" (including the right to sue another in Federal Court). Article III states that Judicial power shall extend to "controversies... between citizens of different states," this is known as the "Diversity Jurisdiction." This means that the US Federal Court can, and will, hear lawsuits that don't necessarily involve a Federal question.
Taney moved one step further and claimed that Scott could never see citizenship on US soil under any circumstance, regardless of his case. To Taney, African American people were not considered to be a part of the "people" in "We the people" of the Declaration of Independence (or the preamble to the Constitution). Due to this belief, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that Dred Scott and his family would not be granted their freedom.
Dred Scott Decision Effects
Upon hearing the outcome of Scott v. Sanford, the states of the North became much more aggravated, adding high amounts of tension to the already fragmented Union of the United States. The Supreme Court ruling that Dred Scott could never receive his citizenship under any circumstances caused many state legislatures to write scathing reviews about Chief Justice Taney. Justice John McLean from the state of Ohio, and Benjamin R. Curtis, the Supreme Court Justice of Massachusetts, both wrote harsh critiques of the decision, stating:
It seems the Federal Government has a positive, indeed Constitutional, obligation to defend slavery."
–Benjamin R. Curtis, Supreme Court Justice
Benjamin R. Curtis Wikimedia Commons
Curtis also emphasized that African American people had been a part of the country's founding in several states. Hence, they should always be seen as members of the nation. In Curtis' opinion, this meant that an African American person could never be denied their US citizenship.
After the trial, Irene married her second husband, Calvin Chaffee. Interestingly, he was both a US Congressman and an Abolitionist. When Chaffee realized that Irene still enslaved people, he sold Dred Scott and his family back to the Blows, who set them all free on May 6th, 1857. Tragically, Scott's freedom was short-lived, as he died of tuberculosis on September 17th, 1858.
Dred Scott Decision Significance
In retaliation to this disastrous decision, Northern states made it clear that they rejected the case as binding to every state.
- The state of Maine began with its high court ruling that African American people would now be allowed to vote in state and federal elections.
- The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that any enslaved person coming into their state with their masters' permission would become free and not be re-enslaved upon returning to a slave state.
Several more Northern states set legislation that prohibited slavery from crossing borders into their territories, meaning that once enslaved people passed state lines, they were considered free.
Naturally, the actions of these Northern states pushed the Southern states closer to secession than ever before. Their final decision was set in stone when Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860. The election caused the South to attempt to officially secede. However, this was against the will of the new President, and the Civil War broke out in 1861.
Dred Scott's wife, Harriet, lived until June of 1876 and was alive to see the Northern victory of the Civil War, along with the passing of the 13th Amendment of 1865: the amendment that would free all of the enslaved forever. Without the strong impact of the Dred Scott decision, this may not have become a reality for many more years.
Dred Scott Decision - Key takeaways
- The Dred Scott Decision was made in 1857 and was a case set to determine Dred Scott and his family's freedom from slavery. The case was officially known as Dred Scott vs John F. A. Sandford.
- Chief Justice Roger B. Taney was in charge of Dred Scott's case in the Supreme Court. Taney ruled that even though Scott had resided in two free states, it was not enough to grant him his freedom. Taney viewed Scott as property, not a person.
- Upon the refusal of Scott's freedom, the North retaliated against the decision by implementing individual legislations to block it, causing the Union to become even more fragile than ever before.
- The Civil War began just after the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1861, lasting until 1865 and ending with Southern loss. Though Scott died in 1858 after being freed in 1857, his wife and children lived to see the passing of the 13th Amendment.
Explanations 
Exams 
Magazine 
