The Dred Scott Decision

Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857


Dred Scott (b. 1799?) was a slave who had been taken by his master, Dr. John Emerson, to the free state of Illinois in 1836 and into the free territory of Wisconsin (above the 36 30' Missouri lines of the Louisiana territory) in 1837.  There he marries a slave woman.  They have two daughters, one of whom is born on the Mississippi River in free territory.

Emerson dies in 1843, leaving the Scotts to his wife.  They now live in the slave state of Missouri.  In 1846, Scott tries to buy his family from Mrs. Emerson, but she refuses his offer.

Ten times in the past, the Missouri courts had ruled in the favor of the slaves under a "once free, always free" idea.  Scott, with the help of abolitionist lawyers, sues for his family's freedom, but loses in June, 1847.  Scott's case is appealed, and he wins, but Mrs. Emerson appeals again in 1852, and the first verdict is overturned by the Missouri Supreme Court that November:

"Times are not now as they were when the former decisions on this subject were made. Since then not only individuals but States have been possessed with a dark and fell spirit in relation to slavery, whose gratification is sought in the pursuit of measures, whose inevitable consequences must be the overthrow and destruction of our government.  Under such circumstances it does not behoove the State of Missouri to show the least countenance to any measure which might gratify this spirit. She is willing to assume her full responsibility for the existence of slavery within her limits, nor does she seek to share or divide it with others" 
Meanwhile, Mrs. Emerson moves to Massachusetts and gives her brother, John Sanford, ownership of the Scotts.  After another failed appeal bid, the case came before the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (pronounced "Tawny").  The issues were:

1)  Was a black person a citizen of the U.S. and entitled to sue in federal court

2)  Had residence of 4 years in a free state and territory made Scott a free man

3)  And was the 36 30' Missouri Compromise line Constitutional?


Justice Samuel Nelson was writing a decision that denied issue #2 that Scott's time in a free states and territory gave him his freedom.  This was based on the 1851 Strader v. Graham decision.  But the court suddenly changed its mind and would rule on all 3 issues because that decision could tacitly imply that blacks were citizens and the 36 30' line was Constitutional.

Southern politicians had wanted the judicial system to weigh in on the legal issues of slavery to keep from continually fighting it in Congress.  Several, along with president James Buchanan, leaned on PA justice Robert Grier to side with the 5 southern justices that would rule for slavery so the outcome would not seem sectional.  He did went along with the decision Taney wrote.  The final vote was 7 - 2.

First, the Taney court ruled that blacks, even if free, were not U.S. citizens and therefore entitled to any protections of the U.S. Constitution or access to the legal system. 

Second, Congress did not have the power to enact the Missouri Compromise.

Third,  territories or states where slavery had been abolished were not entitled to free slaves, because this would be a deprivation of a slaveholder's "property" rights.


Effects and Reactions:

It would help create the financial Panic of 1857 because fear gripped the North that slavery in the north would stifle the economy. 

Republicans Seward and Lincoln will suggest collusion between southern politicians and the court.  


For Jefferson Davis, the Dred Scott case was merely a question of "whether Cuffee [blacks] should be kept in his normal condition or not".^[

"Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits ... We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State."  Abraham Lincoln, House Divided  speech, June 16, 1858. 

"Thus has a politico-legal question, involving others of deep import, been decided emphatically in favor of the advocates and supporters of the Constitution and the Union, the equality of the States and the rights of the South, in contradistinction to and in repudiation of the diabolical doctrines inculcated by factionists and fanatics; and that too by a tribunal of jurists, as learned, impartial and unprejudiced as perhaps the world has ever seen. A prize, for which the athletes of the nation have often wrestled in the halls of Congress, has been awarded at last, by the proper umpire, to those who have justly won it. The "nation" has achieved a triumph, "sectionalism" has been rebuked, and abolitionism has been staggered and stunned... a great, national, conservative, union saving sentiment has been proclaimed."  Richmond Enquirer

"The [347,525] Slaveholders in the Republic, accomplished day before yesterday a great success — as shallow men estimate success.  They converted the Supreme Court of Law and Equity of the United States of America into a propagandist of human Slavery.  Fatal day for a judiciary made reputable throughout the world, and reliable to all in this nation, by the learning and the virtues of Jay, Rutledge, Ellsworth, Marshall and Story!

"The conspiracy is nearly completed. The Legislation of the Republic is in the hands of this handful of Slaveholders. The United States Senate assures it to them. The Executive power of the Government is theirs....  The [Supreme Court] has just acceded to their demands [declaring]... men of African descent are not citizens of the United States and can not be — that the Ordinance of 1787 was void — that human Slavery is not a local thing, but pursues its victims to free soil, clings to them wherever they go, and returns with them — that the American Congress has no power to prevent the enslavement of men in the National Territories — that the inhabitants themselves of the Territories have no power to exclude human bondage from their midst — and that men of color can not be suitors for justice in the Courts of the United States!"  Albany, NY, Evening Star


The remaining concern:  Did the court's decision suggest that slavery was legal in "free" states?  Why couldn't a slave owner take his "property" there indefinitely?



The Dred Scott (Taney) Court:


Roger B. Taney   -  MD -  Andrew Jackson, 1836
John McLean      -  OH -  Andrew Jackson, 1829
 James M Wayne  -  GA - Andrew Jackson, 1836 
John Catron        -  TN - Andrew Jackson, 1837
Peter V Daniel    -  VA - Martin van Buren, 1841
Samuel Nelson    -  NY - John Tyler, 1845
Robert C Grier     -  PA - James Polk, 1846
Benjamin R Curtis -  MA - Millard Fillmore, 1851
John A Campbell -  AL - Franklin Pierce, 1853