The Dred Scott case, formally known as Dred Scott v. Sandford, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on March 6, 1857. This legal battle emerged against the backdrop of a nation deeply divided over the issue of slavery. The 1850s were marked by escalating tensions between free and slave states, exemplified by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which allowed territories to decide on the legality of slavery through popular sovereignty. The political setting was ripe for a case that would test the limits of federal power over slavery and challenge the Missouri Compromise’s restrictions on slavery’s expansion.
Dred Scott was an enslaved African American man who had lived with his owner, Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon in the U.S. Army. Emerson took Scott from Missouri, a slave state, to Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory, areas where slavery was prohibited. After Emerson’s death, Scott was returned to Missouri, where Emerson’s widow, Irene Sanford Emerson, inherited his estate, including Scott. Scott sought his freedom in the Missouri courts, arguing that his residence in free territories made him a free man.
The legal battle began in 1846 when Scott sued for his freedom in the Missouri state courts. He based his claim on the precedent that Missouri courts had previously granted freedom to enslaved individuals who had been taken into free jurisdictions. However, after a series of trials and appeals, the Missouri Supreme Court decided against Scott, reversing its own precedent.
Unwilling to accept this decision, Scott’s legal team filed a case in the federal legal system, bringing it to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case presented complex jurisdictional and substantive questions, including whether an African American could be considered a citizen with the standing to sue in federal court.
President James Buchanan, inaugurated just days after the Supreme Court heard the case, reportedly pressured a Northern justice to side with the Southern majority, hoping the decision would settle the slavery issue. Buchanan’s involvement highlighted the case’s political implications and the government’s role in addressing slavery.
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion, with its key rulings:
1. African Americans Are Not Citizens: The Court ruled that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not considered citizens of the United States under the U.S. Constitution and, therefore, could not initiate lawsuits in federal courts. This ruling was based on a historical interpretation that, at the time the Constitution was ratified, African Americans were not recognized as part of the sovereign people who constituted the nation.
2. Residence in a Free Territory Does Not Confer Freedom: The Court decided that Scott’s extended residence in Illinois (a free state) and the Wisconsin Territory (where slavery was prohibited by the Missouri Compromise) did not make him free. This part of the ruling was predicated on the notion that moving to free territory did not alter the legal status of slavery, which was considered a matter of property rights under state law.
3. The Missouri Compromise Is Unconstitutional: The Court declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which prohibited slavery in certain territories north of the 36°30′ parallel, unconstitutional. The rationale was that Congress lacked the authority to deprive individuals of their property, including enslaved people, without due process of law, as protected by the Fifth Amendment. This effectively removed the power of Congress to legislate slavery in the territories, suggesting that slave owners could take their slaves into any territory and maintain ownership.
These specific rulings combined to not only deny Dred Scott his freedom but also to significantly escalate tensions between the Northern and Southern states. By effectively opening all U.S. territories to slavery and denying the federal government the power to regulate it in those territories, the decision pushed the nation closer to the Civil War. The ruling on citizenship also had far-reaching implications for the rights and legal status of African Americans until it was overturned by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, which granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including formerly enslaved people.
Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis and Justice John McLean dissented, arguing that the majority’s opinion contradicted both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution’s principles. Curtis, in particular, detailed historical evidence that African Americans were considered citizens in several states at the time of the Constitution’s signing.
The decision was met with widespread outrage in the North and jubilation in the South. It further polarized the nation, contributing to the growing sectional crisis that would culminate in the Civil War. The ruling effectively nullified any political compromise on the expansion of slavery and underscored the Supreme Court’s role in national debates.
After the Supreme Court’s decision, Dred Scott and his family were returned to the ownership of the Emerson estate. However, shortly thereafter, they were sold to Taylor Blow, who had been instrumental in financing Scott’s legal battles. Blow granted the Scott family their freedom in May 1857.
The Dred Scott decision had significant economic implications, particularly in territories on the brink of statehood. By removing restrictions on slavery’s expansion, the ruling encouraged slaveholders to move into new territories, affecting the balance between free and slave states and the economic activities in those areas.
The decision exacerbated the sectional crisis, contributing to the election of Abraham Lincoln and the secession of the Southern states. The Civil War’s outcome and the passage of the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, nullified the Dred Scott decision and ended the legal basis for slavery in the United States.
The Dred Scott case remains one of the Supreme Court’s most controversial decisions. It is often cited as a pivotal moment in the lead-up to the Civil War and a stark example of the judiciary’s potential impact on social and political issues. The case underscored the need for constitutional amendments to rectify injustices and highlighted the evolving nature of civil rights in America. Its legacy is a reminder of the enduring struggle for equality and justice within the legal system.
DAVE DOES HISTORY 
Leave a comment