Dred Scott1

Life of Dred Scott• Original owners - Taylor

Blow (Virginia)

• Sold to Dr. Emerson (Missouri)

• Taken into Illinois and Wisconsin Territory by Dr. Emerson

• Returns to Missouri with Dr. Emerson

• Sues for freedom in Missouri courts

2

Harriet Scott

• Married Dred at Fort Snelling

• Attended church with abolitionist minister

• Knew attorney prior to Dred’s case beginning

• Had two daughters who wereof age to be sold

3

4

5

Rationale for Dred's Case

• “Over the next twelve years Scott accompanies Emerson to posts in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory, where Congress prohibited slavery under the rules of the Missouri Compromise”

6

Legal Journey• Lose initial trial

• Appeal and win

• Case is appealed, Dred loses

• Sold to new owner in new state, goes to federal court and loses

• Appeals to SCOTUS, result...

7

The Final Decision• Dred Scott was a slave. Under

Articles III and IV, argued Taney, no one but a citizen of the United States could be a citizen of a state, and that only Congress could confer national citizenship. Taney reached the conclusion that no person descended from an American slave had ever been a citizen for Article III purposes. The Court then held the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, hoping to end the slavery question once and for all.

8

Tanney and the Declaration of Independence

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

9

Northern ReactionWe must confess we are shocked at the

violence and servility of the Judicial Revolution caused by the decision of the Supreme Court of

the United States. We scarcely know how to express our detestation of its inhuman dicta or fathom the wicked consequences which may

flow from it . . . . To say or suppose, that a Free People can respect or will obey a decision so fraught with disastrous consequences to the

People and their Liberties, is to dream of impossibilities.

10

Southern ReactionWe cherish a most ardent and confident

expectation that this decision will meet a proper reception from the great mass of our intelligent

countrymen; that it will be regarded with soberness and not with passion; and that it will

thereby exert a mighty influence in diffusing sound opinions and restoring harmony and

fraternal concord throughout the country . . . . It would be fortunate, indeed, if the opinion of that court on this important subject could

receive the candid and respectful acquiescence which it merits.11