Key Constitutional Question: Dred Scott V. Sandford

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857 was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that black people of African descent were not citizens of the United States and therefore could not enjoy the rights and protections conferred by the Constitution. The case involved Dred Scott, an enslaved black man, who sued for freedom for himself and his family after his enslaver took him to a free state and territory. The Court's decision, which also invalidated the Missouri Compromise of 1820, was widely denounced for its overt racism and poor legal reasoning, and it played a significant role in intensifying the debate over slavery, pushing the nation closer to the Civil War.

Explore related products

The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics

$28.21 $36.99

Dred Scott and the Politics of Slavery (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)

$24.99 $29.99

Origins of the Dred Scott Case: Jacksonian Jurisprudence and the Supreme Court, 1837-1857 (Studies in the Legal History of the South)

$24.08 $30.95

Dred Scott: The Inside Story

$6.95

The Dred Scott Case: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Race and Law (Law Society & Politics in the Midwest)

$73.93

Legal and Historical Status of the Dred Scott Decision: A History of the Case and an Examination of the Opinion Delivered by the Supreme Court of the United States, March 6, 1857

$32.95

Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri

The Dred Scott case, or Dred Scott v. Sandford, is widely considered one of the worst decisions ever made by the United States Supreme Court. The case involved Dred Scott, an enslaved black man, suing his owner, John Sandford, for his freedom. Scott had been taken by his owner to reside in a free state and territory, and upon their return to the slave state of Missouri, Scott sued for his freedom, arguing that his residence in a free territory meant he was no longer a slave.

The Supreme Court ruled against Scott, stating that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and therefore could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. The Court's opinion, written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, began with the question of whether Black people could possess federal citizenship under the U.S. Constitution. The Court decided that they could not, and that the Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent.

This decision had far-reaching implications, effectively nationalizing slavery and pushing the nation closer to the Civil War. It also meant that Scott, as an enslaved person, was not a citizen of Missouri and therefore had no right to sue for his freedom. This was because the relevant constitutional provision granted federal courts jurisdiction only between "citizens" of different states.

The Court's decision in the Dred Scott case was later overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and declared that all persons born in the United States are citizens.

Scott's freedom was determined by Missouri law

The Dred Scott case, or Dred Scott v. Sandford, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1857. The case involved Dred Scott, an enslaved man, who sued for his freedom and that of his family, based on their residence in a free state and territory. Scott's case first went to trial in 1854, and the question of his freedom was determined by Missouri law. The Missouri Supreme Court had previously held that Scott remained a slave, and the jury in the 1854 trial found in favor of Scott's owner, John Sanford.

Scott's original owner had taken him from Missouri, a slave-holding state, to Illinois and Wisconsin, which were free states and territories. Upon returning to Missouri, Scott sued his owner for his freedom, arguing that his residence in free states and territories entitled him to freedom. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Scott was not a citizen of Missouri and, therefore, could not enjoy the rights and protections afforded by the Constitution. The Court's decision was based on the interpretation that the Constitution did not extend citizenship to people of black African descent.

The Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott case had far-reaching implications. It effectively nationalized slavery and pushed back efforts for abolition. The Court also held that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which abolished slavery in the Upper Louisiana Territory, was unconstitutional. This decision invalidated nearly four decades of accepted constitutional settlement, fueling sectional controversy and pushing the country closer to the Civil War.

The Dred Scott decision is widely considered one of the worst, if not the worst, in the Supreme Court's history. It has been denounced for its overt racism, judicial activism, and poor legal reasoning. The decision was later overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and granted citizenship to all persons born in the United States.

Scott was denied constitutional protections

Dred Scott, an enslaved man, was taken by his enslaver into a free state and free federal territory. Scott sued for freedom for himself and his family based on his stay in free territory. However, the Court refused to grant Scott constitutional protections and rights because he was not considered a citizen. The Court's decision was based on the interpretation that the Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent. This meant that they could not enjoy the rights and privileges conferred upon American citizens.

The Court's ruling had far-reaching implications, effectively nationalizing slavery and setting the stage for the American Civil War. The decision was widely denounced for its overt racism, judicial activism, and poor legal reasoning. Legal scholars, such as Bernard Schwartz, have criticized it as one of the worst decisions in the Supreme Court's history.

In the Dred Scott case, the Court held that Scott was not a citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States and was, therefore, not entitled to sue in its courts. This decision was influenced by the prevailing public opinion and feelings towards the "unfortunate race" at the time. The Court's opinion reflected the belief that the African race was inferior and unfit to associate with the white race, either socially or politically.

The Court also addressed the Missouri Compromise, which abolished slavery in the Upper Louisiana Territory. The Court held that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because it violated the enslaver's property rights in the enslaved person. This ruling further hindered efforts towards the abolition of slavery and established a precedent that African Americans were not American citizens, lacking constitutional protections and rights.

The Dred Scott case highlights a significant moment in the history of the United States, showcasing the country's struggle with slavery and racial inequality. The denial of constitutional protections to Dred Scott based on his race underscores the injustices endured by African Americans during this period.

Explore related products

The Dred Scott Case: Slavery and Citizenship (Landmark Supreme Court Cases: Gold Edition)

$35.93

The Case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court: The Full Opinions of Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and Abstracts of the Opinions ... Ruled, and Some Concluding Observations.

$18.75

The Case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court: The Full Opinions

$29.95

The Dred Scott Case (1908)

$18.95

Origins of the Dred Scott Case (06) by Allen, Austin [Paperback (2006)]

$68.16

A Legal Review of the Case of Dred Scott

$52.9

The Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the US Constitution did not extend citizenship to people of African descent, and therefore, they could not enjoy the rights and privileges conferred upon American citizens. The case involved Dred Scott, an enslaved black man, who sued for freedom for himself and his family, based on his residence in a free state and territory.

The Missouri Compromise, which was a part of the Dred Scott case, was a legislative settlement that had been accepted as constitutional for nearly four decades. The Compromise declared free all territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30′. However, in the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. The Court held that Congress had exceeded its authority in the Compromise by prohibiting slavery in these territories. The Court's opinion was that black people could not possess federal citizenship under the US Constitution, and therefore, Scott was not a citizen of Missouri and was not entitled to sue in its courts.

The Court's decision on the Missouri Compromise was based on the argument that the property rights of slave owners were violated by the prohibition of slavery in the territories. This ruling pushed back efforts for the abolition of slavery and created a standard that African Americans were not citizens, with no constitutional rights or protections. This decision was widely denounced for its overt racism, judicial activism, and poor legal reasoning, and it is often regarded as the worst decision in the Supreme Court's history.

The Dred Scott decision had far-reaching implications, as it de facto nationalized slavery and moved the nation closer to the Civil War. The decision was later overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and declared all persons born in the United States as citizens.

The ruling fuelled sectional controversy

The Dred Scott decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority in the Missouri Compromise, which had declared free all territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30′. The Court's ruling stated that Congress had no power to forbid or abolish slavery in these territories, as the enslaver’s property rights in the enslaved person were violated. This invalidated legislation that had been an accepted constitutional settlement for nearly four decades, fuelling sectional controversy and pushing the country closer to civil war.

The ruling stated that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. This was based on a narrow interpretation of the Property Clause of Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution, where Taney ruled that the clause "applied only to the property which the States held in common at that time and has no reference to any territory or other property which the new sovereignty might afterwards itself acquire". As the Louisiana Territory was not part of the United States when the Constitution was ratified, Congress did not have the authority to ban slavery in the territory.

The decision inflamed the national debate over slavery and deepened the divide between the states, ultimately leading to the American Civil War. The ruling suited the slaveholding states, but was intensely decried in all the other states. The Supreme Court's decision was widely denounced for its overt racism, judicial activism, and poor legal reasoning. It is considered by many to be the worst decision in the Supreme Court's history, with legal scholar Bernard Schwartz commenting that it "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions".

Frequently asked questions