Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) - Case Summary

Legal Case Summary

Facts

Dred Scott was an enslaved African American man in the United States who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom and that of his wife and their two daughters in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, the decade before the American Civil War (Fehrenbacher, 2001). Scott's master maintained that no pure-blooded Negro of African descent and the descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution.

Scott initially brought his case in a Missouri court, where he gained a verdict in his favour. This case was later reversed by the Missouri Supreme Court. It subsequently reached the federal courts (Don E. Fehrenbacher, 1978).

Issues

The case raised several issues including whether a negro, whose ancestors were imported into the U.S., and sold as slaves, became a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution, and consequently entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen (US Supreme Court, 1856).

Another issue raised by the case was whether the Congress of the United States was empowered by the Constitution to pass laws to prohibit slavery in certain territories (US Supreme Court, 1856).

Analysis

The case has been analysed extensively by legal scholars for its impacts on the delicate balance between free and slave states in the run-up to the Civil War, and for its overturning by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including former slaves (Fehrenbacher, 2001). It left a lasting mark on the nation's history also due to the moral questions it raised, and how it pointedly highlighted the deeply entrenched racial bias present at the time.

Decision

Chief Justice Roger Taney delivered the majority opinion of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in favour of Sandford, holding that neither the federal government nor territorial governments could ban slavery in the territories and denying citizenship to black people. The court stated that slaves were not citizens, but property (US Supreme Court, 1856).

References

• Fehrenbacher, D. (2001). The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics. Oxford University Press, USA.
• US Supreme Court (1856). Dred Scott v. Sandford. Harvard Law Review, vol. 60.
• Fehrenbacher, D. E. (1978). Slavery, Law, and Politics: The Dred Scott Case in Historical Perspective. Oxford University Press, USA.

---

Journalist Brief

In a case that has gone down in history as a dark stain on the American judicial system, Dred Scott, an enslaved man, was denied his freedom in a landmark judgment which ruled that slaves were not citizens but property. This case not only cemented the idea that slaves were less than human, it also ruled that the government had no jurisdiction to ban slavery in the territories. The judgment provoked outrage and controversy, and played a significant role in escalating tensions that led to the American Civil War. It was overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted former slaves citizenship.

FAQs

What was the Dred Scott v. Sandford case about?

Answer: The case was about a slave named Dred Scott who tried to sue for his and his family's freedom. It raised issues about the legal status of slaves and the power of the government to regulate slavery.

What was the decision in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case?

Answer: The Supreme Court ruled that slaves were not citizens, therefore, Dred Scott was not entitled to his freedom. It also said the government had no power to ban slavery.

What were the impacts of the Dred Scott v. Sandford case?

Answer: The case escalated tensions between free and slave states and contributed to the start of the Civil War. It was later overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including former slaves.