The Dred Scott Case: Constitutional Rights And Citizenship

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857 is widely considered one of the worst decisions in the history of the United States Supreme Court. The case involved Dred Scott, an enslaved man who was taken by his enslaver to a free state and territory. Scott sued for his freedom and that of his family, arguing that his residence in a free territory entitled him to freedom. The Court ruled that Scott was not a citizen and therefore could not enjoy the rights and protections of the Constitution. This decision de facto nationalized slavery, deepened sectional tensions, and pushed 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

Dred Scott: The Inside Story

$6.95

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

$23.98 $30.95

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

$73.93

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

$35.93

Dred Scott's freedom suit

Dred Scott was an enslaved black man who, in 1846, filed a freedom suit in the St. Louis Circuit Court. Scott's suit was backed financially by the adult children of Peter Blow, his original owner. Scott's wife, Harriet, also played a critical role, pushing him to pursue freedom on behalf of their family.

Missouri precedent, dating back to 1824, held that slaves freed through prolonged residence in a free state or territory would remain free if returned to Missouri. This doctrine was known as "Once free, always free". Scott and Harriet had resided for two years in free states and territories, and their eldest daughter had been born on the Mississippi River, between a free state and a free territory.

On March 22, 1852, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that Scott remained a slave. In 1853, Scott sued his current owner, John Sanford, in federal court. Sanford was a citizen of New York, while Scott would have been a citizen of Missouri if he had been free. The Federal courts thus had diversity jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. After losing in federal district court, Scott appealed to the United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford (the defendant's name was misspelled due to a clerical error).

On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion of the Court, which 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. The Court also ruled that Congress had no authority to ban slavery from a federal territory. The decision de facto nationalized slavery and played a crucial role in the events leading up to the American Civil War.

The Missouri Compromise

The Compromise admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state, ensuring that the number of slave and free states in the country remained equal. This was achieved by linking the statehood applications of Maine and Missouri, making Maine's admission as a free state contingent on Missouri's entry as a slave state.

Additionally, the Missouri Compromise included a provision that prohibited slavery in the remaining Louisiana Purchase lands north of the 36°30′ parallel. This provision was added by Senator Jesse B. Thomas of Illinois and was intended to address the concerns of northern states about the expansion of slavery.

The Compromise was passed by the 16th United States Congress on March 3, 1820, and was signed into law by President James Monroe on March 6, 1820. However, it was later repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857.

In the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court ruled that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, had no legal protection or rights. The Court also stated that Congress had no authority to ban slavery in federal territories. This decision intensified the national debate over slavery and contributed to the growing divide between the North and South, ultimately leading to the American Civil War.

The Supreme Court's decision

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that had far-reaching implications for the nation. On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the Court's majority opinion, which made several significant rulings:

Firstly, the Court held that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not enjoy the rights and protections afforded by the Constitution. This meant that Dred Scott, as an enslaved person, was not a citizen of any state and could not establish the "diversity of citizenship" required for a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over his case.

Secondly, the Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which prohibited slavery in territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30', was unconstitutional. The Court argued that Congress had exceeded its authority by interfering with slave owners' property rights, as guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment. This ruling effectively invalidated a long-standing constitutional settlement and inflamed tensions over slavery.

Thirdly, the Court's decision implied that African Americans were not and could never become citizens of the United States. This ruling established a precedent that denied African Americans constitutional protections and rights, further entrenching their status as inferior and unfit to associate with the white race.

Explore related products

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

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

$29.95

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 Dred Scott Case (1908)

$18.95

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

$67.96

A Legal Review of the Case of Dred Scott

$52.9

The implications for slavery

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case had far-reaching implications for slavery in the United States. The case centred on Dred Scott, an enslaved man who was taken by his enslaver to reside in a free state (Illinois) and free federal territory (Wisconsin) before returning to the slave state of Missouri. Scott sued for his freedom, arguing that his residence in a free state and territory entitled him to emancipation.

The Supreme Court's decision in 1857 had several key implications for slavery:

Denial of Citizenship and Rights for African Americans: The Court ruled that Scott, as an enslaved person, was not a citizen of the United States and could not enjoy the rights and protections conferred by the Constitution. This decision effectively denied African Americans citizenship and any associated legal protections, including the right to sue for freedom. It established a precedent that African Americans were not entitled to the same rights and privileges as white citizens, reinforcing their status as second-class citizens.

Invalidation of the Missouri Compromise: The Court also ruled that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which prohibited slavery in territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30', was unconstitutional. The Compromise had served as a crucial settlement, balancing the interests of free and slave states. By declaring it unconstitutional, the Court asserted that Congress had no authority to ban slavery in federal territories, thereby protecting the property rights of slave owners. This ruling exacerbated interstate tensions and inflamed the national debate over slavery.

Nationalization of Slavery: The decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford effectively nationalized slavery by establishing that it could not be prohibited in federal territories. This meant that slavery could legally exist anywhere in the United States, making it more challenging to contain or abolish.

Deepening of Sectional Divide: The implications of the Dred Scott case intensified the divide between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the country. The ruling inflamed tensions between states, particularly between slave-holding states and those opposed to slavery. This deepening divide ultimately contributed to the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861.

Fuel for Abolitionist Movement: While the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford initially pushed back efforts for abolition, it also galvanised opponents of slavery. The ruling's explicit denial of rights to African Americans and endorsement of slavery in federal territories rallied support for the abolitionist cause. The Republican Party, which opposed slavery, gained traction, and its candidate, Abraham Lincoln, won the presidential election in 1860, further polarising the nation along sectional lines.

The role of Chief Justice Taney

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney played a pivotal role in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, which is widely considered one of the worst decisions in the history of the United States Supreme Court due to its overt racism and poor legal reasoning.

Taney read the majority opinion of the Court on March 6, 1857, stating that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and therefore could not enjoy the rights and protections afforded by the Constitution. This decision had far-reaching implications, effectively nationalizing slavery and pushing the nation closer to the Civil War.

Taney's opinion held that Dred Scott, an enslaved man who had been taken to a free state and territory, was not entitled to his freedom. He ruled that Scott was not a citizen of the United States or of any individual state and, therefore, could not establish the "diversity of citizenship" required for a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over his case. This ruling denied Scott the constitutional protections and rights that were granted only to citizens.

Furthermore, Taney's decision struck down the Missouri Compromise, which had prohibited slavery in territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30'. He argued that the Compromise interfered with slave owners' property rights under the Fifth Amendment, marking a victory for slaveholding states. However, this ruling inflamed the national debate over slavery, exacerbating interstate tensions and deepening the divide between states.

Taney's role in the Dred Scott case has been heavily criticized, with future Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist characterizing the decision as "Taney's effort to protect slaveholders from legislative interference." The case has been described as a "'self-inflicted wound' from which the Court struggled to recover, and it was ultimately overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments, which abolished slavery and established citizenship for all persons born in the United States.

Frequently asked questions