Dred Scott's Decision: Law Or Legacy?

The Dred Scott decision was the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on March 6, 1857, that having lived in a free state and territory did not entitle an enslaved person, Dred Scott, to his freedom. In essence, the decision argued that, as someone's property, Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in a federal court. The majority opinion by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney also stated that Congress had no power to exclude slavery from the territories (thus invalidating the Missouri Compromise) and that African Americans could never become U.S. citizens.

The Dred Scott decision was that Black people could not be US citizens

The Dred Scott case, also known as Dred Scott v. Sandford, was a decade-long fight for freedom by a Black enslaved man named Dred Scott. In 1846, Scott and his wife, Harriet, sued for their freedom in St. Louis Circuit Court. They claimed that they were free due to their residence in a free territory where slavery was prohibited. The case persisted through several courts and ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

On March 6, 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that Black people were not U.S. citizens and had no standing to sue for freedom. Chief Justice Roger Taney, writing for the majority, argued that Black people were not included under the word "citizens" in the Constitution and could therefore claim none of the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens. Taney further stated that the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in U.S. territories north of the 36°30' parallel, was unconstitutional because it deprived citizens of their slave property without due process of law.

The Dred Scott decision outraged abolitionists, intensified the debate over slavery, and deepened the divide between the North and South, ultimately pushing the country towards the Civil War. The decision was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and declared all persons born in the United States to be citizens.

The decision was that Black people had no right to sue in federal court

The Dred Scott decision was a landmark ruling by the United States Supreme Court that held that the US Constitution did not extend citizenship to people of Black African descent, and therefore they could not enjoy the rights and privileges conferred upon American citizens. The decision was that Black people had no right to sue in federal court.

The case of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) was a decade-long fight for freedom by Dred Scott, an enslaved Black man. Scott and his wife, Harriet, sued for their freedom and that of their two daughters, Eliza and Lizzie, in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857. They claimed that they should be granted freedom because Dred had lived in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory for four years, where slavery was illegal.

The United States Supreme Court decided 7-2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney gave the court's opinion, ruling that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and had no rights to sue in federal courts. He further argued that Black people could not be citizens, stating that they were:

> "...at that time [of America's founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."

Taney's opinion also stated that Congress had no authority to ban slavery from a federal territory, and that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had declared free all territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30′, was unconstitutional.

The decision stated that Black people were not included in the word citizens in the Constitution

The Dred Scott decision was the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on March 6, 1857, that Black people were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The decision stated that Black people were not included in the word "citizens" in the Constitution and could therefore claim none of the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon citizens. Chief Justice Roger Taney's opinion for the court was that Black people were considered a "subordinate and inferior class of beings" who were not intended to be included in the political community formed by the Constitution. This decision had far-reaching implications, intensifying tensions between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions and pushing the country closer to the Civil War.

Taney's opinion for the court was based on the assertion that Black people were not included in the word "citizens" in the Constitution and were therefore not entitled to the rights and privileges conferred upon citizens. He argued that Black people were considered a "subordinate and inferior class of beings" and that a perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery". Taney reviewed American state and local laws from the time of the Constitution's drafting in 1787 to support his argument. He also cited the Declaration of Independence, claiming that the general words "all men are created equal" were not intended to include Black people.

Taney's decision had significant consequences. It invalidated the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had prohibited slavery in territories north of the 36°30' parallel. By ruling that Congress had no power to exclude slavery from the territories, the decision effectively meant that Congress had no authority to prevent the spread of slavery. This inflamed the national debate over slavery and deepened the divide between the North and the South, ultimately contributing to the outbreak of the Civil War.

The Dred Scott decision was met with outrage by abolitionists and intensified the anti-slavery movement. It was widely denounced for its overt racism, judicial activism, and poor legal reasoning. Legal scholar Bernard Schwartz described it as "the worst in the Supreme Court's history". The decision was also a personal blow to Dred Scott and his family, who remained enslaved despite their decade-long fight for freedom. However, just three months after the Supreme Court's ruling, they were emancipated by their owner.

The decision ruled that Congress had no power to exclude slavery from the territories

The Dred Scott decision was the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on March 6, 1857, that having lived in a free state and territory did not entitle an enslaved person, Dred Scott, to his freedom. The decision ruled that Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in a federal court. The majority opinion by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney also stated that Congress had no power to exclude slavery from the territories, thus invalidating the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to address the issue of slavery in the territories acquired during the Louisiana Purchase. It admitted Maine as a free state and Missouri as a slave state, while prohibiting slavery in the remaining Louisiana Purchase territory north of the 36°30′ parallel. The Compromise was an accepted constitutional settlement for nearly four decades until the Dred Scott decision.

In the Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Taney's opinion for the court was that African Americans were not American citizens and could not sue as citizens in federal courts. He further argued that Congress had no constitutional authority to ban slavery in federal territories, as slaves were considered private property. Taney's opinion stated that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, marking the first time since the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison that the Supreme Court had struck down a federal law.

Taney's ruling on the Dred Scott case had far-reaching implications, intensifying sectional tensions between the North and the South and pushing the country closer to the Civil War. The decision was widely denounced for its overt racism, judicial activism, and poor legal reasoning. It was considered a blatant act of judicial activism, creating a constitutional right to own slaves and disenfranchising all people of African descent.

The decision invalidated the Missouri Compromise

The Dred Scott decision invalidated the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had prohibited slavery in the area north of the 36°30′ parallel. The Compromise had declared free all territories west of Missouri and north of the 36°30′ latitude line, including Minnesota.

Dred Scott was an enslaved African American man who, along with his wife, Harriet, sued for their freedom in 1857. They argued that they should be granted freedom because Dred had lived in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory (now part of Minnesota)—where slavery was illegal—for four years. The case, known as Dred Scott v. Sandford, reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 7-2 against Scott.

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion, ruling that people of African descent were not included and were not intended to be included under the word "citizens" in the U.S. Constitution. He further ruled that the Missouri Compromise was void because it interfered with slave owners' property rights under the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits depriving citizens of their property without due process of law.

The decision inflamed tensions between the North and the South, deepened sectional controversy, and pushed the country closer to the Civil War. It was widely denounced for its overt racism, judicial activism, poor legal reasoning, and crucial role in starting the Civil War.

Frequently asked questions