Dred Scott v Sandford
The Rundown
The case takes place in 1857, its Pre-Civil War
time and tensions are growing between the
North and the South.
The Missouri Compromise was in place,
creating the 36 30 line where territory not
already decided as a slave state would be free
territory and any state coming in henceforth
would be free states above that line.
At this point there are only 12 Amendments so
African Americans are not citizens yet.
Dred Scott
Born in 1799 Virginia, Dred Scott grew up a slave to Peter Blow.
When he was 31 his master moved him from Alabama to Missouri.
In 1834 he was sold to an army Doctor by the name of John Emerson.
Emerson then moved him and Scott to a town above the 36 30 line where he was
in free territory.
Later they moved back to the slave state of Missouri. There he married and had
two kids with Emerson’s other slave, Harriet.
Scott’s Argument
When his master, Emerson, died in 1843,
Scott and his family were left to his Widow.
Mrs. Emerson then left the slaves and the
estate to her brother, John Sanford.
This is when Scott decided to sue for his
freedom.
He claimed that since he had lived in a free
state he was a free man. The time after was
him being illegally held and taken to slave
territory.
The other side
Sanford:
As the owner and as a supporter of slavery, he
didn’t want Scott to be free.
The Supreme Court:
Because he was African American, they argued
that he couldn’t sue in the Supreme Court
because he was not a citizen of the United
States.
They also argued that they don’t have much
power in territories that have not become official
States yet.
What’s being argued
Should Scott be free after being in free territory?
What defines a citizen?
Specifically are African Americans citizens?
Is the Missouri Compromise constitutional?
Did the Congress have the power to determine slavery in territories?
How would you decide?
Supreme Court’s Decision
The decision had a 7-2 majority ruling in favor of Sanford.
The ruling stated that, as defined by the constitution, African Americans were not
citizens and so they couldn’t hear the case to begin with.
The Supreme Court then decided that Congress couldn’t stop people from
owning slaves in territories because they are not under the protection of the
constitution. (They didn’t count)
They also said slaves don’t just magically become free after crossing into free
territory or state. It would be taking away the owner’s property without due
process of the law as required by the 5th Amendment.
Significance
This case ended up deciding that the
Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional:
Congress had no right to decide whether
slavery is allowed in a territory.
Ironically the court was trying to make a final
decision about slavery and end the debacle.
Instead this built onto the ever growing
tensions of the North and South leading up
to the Civil War, which takes place 4 years
later.
Recap Quiz
What was going on at the time of the
case?
Who did Scott sue his freedom from?
What did Scott argue for his freedom
with?
How did the court respond to his
argument?
What followed the case that made it so
important?
Works Cited
http://landmarkcases.org/en/land
mark/cases/dred_scott_v_sandford
#Tab=Overview
https://www.oyez.org/cases/18501900/60us393