Dred Scott v. Sandford - Case Summary

Legal Case Summary

Facts

Dr John Emerson, a surgeon in the U.S. Army, bought Dred Scott, a black slave, in Missouri ('slave state'). He later moved to Illinois ('free state') then to the Wisconsin Territory ('free territory') where Scott lived as a slave for several years. Emerson returned to Missouri with Scott.

After Emerson’s death, Scott sued his widow for his freedom, arguing that his residence in free territory rendered him a free man. After legal battles, the case was adopted by politically interested parties and brought before the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Constitution of the United States recognized slaves as citizens?

2. Whether Dred Scott’s residency in a free state and territory made him a free man?

Analysis

The decision in Dred Scott's case fuelled sectional tensions between the North and South, directly contributing to the Civil War (Bruns, 2014). It was also an unprecedented blow to the idea of popular sovereignty; the free states could no longer prevent slavery from expanding (Wiecek, 1977). The verdict also exposed the Court's limitation in the absence of corresponding executive or legislative support to enforce its judgments (Fehrenbacher, 1978).

Decision

In a 7-2 verdict, the Court held that Scott was not free based on his residence in either Illinois or the Wisconsin Territory. In a controversial decision, the Court ruled that:

On Citizenship

Scott could not sue for his freedom because he was not an American citizen—African Americans were not and could not become citizens.

On Slavery

Neither the Missouri Compromise of 1820—which had declared free all territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30′—nor any act of Congress, could confer freedom or citizenship within any territory because it was unconstitutional to deprive any person of property (namely, slaves) without due process.

References

• Bruns, R. A. (2014). Dred Scott: Person or Property? In The Damnedest Radical: The Life and World of Ben Reitman, Chicago’s Celebrated Social Reformer, Hobo King, and Whorehouse Physician. University of Illinois Press.
• Fehrenbacher, D. E. (1978). The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics. Oxford University Press.
• Wiecek, W. M. (1977). The Sources of the Dred Scott Decision. American Journal of Legal History. 21, 1–27.

---

Journalist Brief

The landmark Dred Scott v. Sandford case (1857) involved a black slave, Dred Scott, who sued for his freedom on the grounds he had lived for years in areas where slavery was illegal. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Scott. In a 7-2 decision, the Court decided that a slave could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court, and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the territories acquired after the formation of the United States. The ruling intensified tensions between the North and South, contributing directly to the outbreak of Civil War.

FAQs

What was the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case?

Answer: The Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott, a slave, was not an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue for his freedom. The federal government was also declared incapable of regulating slavery in U.S. territories.

What was the impact of the Dred Scott decision?

Answer: The decision heightened tensions between the Northern and Southern states, contributing to the outbreak of the Civil War.

Was the Dred Scott decision ever overturned?

Answer: Yes, the Dred Scott decision was effectively overturned by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1868, which granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., including former slaves.