The dred scott case biography

Dred Scott

African-American plaintiff in freedom suit (c.1799–1858)

For the Supreme Court decision, see Dred Scott v. Sandford.

For other uses, see Dred Scott (disambiguation).

Dred Scott (c. 1799 – September 17, 1858) was an enslavedAfrican American man who, along with his wife, Harriet, unsuccessfully sued for the freedom of themselves and their two daughters, Eliza and Lizzie, in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as the "Dred Scott decision". The Scotts claimed that they should be granted freedom because Dred had lived in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory for four years, where slavery was illegal, and laws in those jurisdictions said that slave holders gave up their rights to slaves if they stayed for an extended period.

In a landmark case, 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. Scott's temporary residence in free territory outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation, because the Missouri Compromise, which made that territory free by prohibiting slavery north of the 36°30′ parallel, was unconstitutional because it "deprives citizens of their [slave] property without due process of law".

Although Chief JusticeRoger B. Taney had hoped to settle issues related to slavery and congressional authority by this decision, it aroused public outrage, deepened sectional tensions between the northern and southern states, and hastened the eventual explosion of their differences into the American Civil War. President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments—the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments—nullified the decision. The Scotts were manumitted by private arrangement in May 1857. Dred Scott died of tuberculosis a year later.

Dred Scott v. Sandford

1857 U.S. Supreme Court case on the citizenship of African-Americans

1857 United States Supreme Court case

Dred Scott v. Sandford

Supreme Court of the United States

Full case nameDred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford
Citations60 U.S.393 (more)

19 How. 393; 15 L. Ed. 691; 1856 WL 8721; 1856 U.S. LEXIS 472

DecisionOpinion
PriorJudgment for defendant, C.C.D. Mo.
Judgment reversed and suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
  1. Persons of African descent cannot be and were never intended to be citizens under the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff is without standing to file a suit.
  2. The Property Clause is applicable only to lands possessed at the time of the Constitution's ratification (1787). As such, Congress cannot ban slavery in the territories. The Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional.
  3. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from freeing slaves brought into federal territories.
Chief Justice
Roger B. Taney
Associate Justices
John McLean · James M. Wayne
John Catron · Peter V. Daniel
Samuel Nelson · Robert C. Grier
Benjamin R. Curtis · John A. Campbell
MajorityTaney, joined by Wayne, Catron, Daniel, Nelson, Grier, Campbell
ConcurrenceWayne
ConcurrenceCatron
ConcurrenceDaniel
ConcurrenceNelson, joined by Grier
ConcurrenceGrier
ConcurrenceCampbell
DissentMcLean
DissentCurtis
U.S. Const. amend. V; U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2; Missouri Compromise

Superseded by

U.S. Const. amends. XIII, XIV, XV

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that held the U.S. Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, and therefore they could not enjoy the rights and privileges the Constitution conferred upon Am

One of the most important cases ever tried in the United States was heard in St. Louis' Old Courthouse. Dred Scott v. Sandford was a landmark decision that helped changed the entire history of the country. The Supreme Court decided the case in 1857, and with their judgement that the Missouri Compromise was void and that no African-Americans were entitled to citizenship, hastened the Civil War which ultimately led to freedom for the enslaved people of the United States.

Dred and Harriet Scott took their future into their own hands in 1846 and came to the Old Courthouse to seek freedom from enslavement. Dred Scott was about 50 years old when the case began. He was born into enslavement in Virginia around 1799, as property of the Peter Blow family. The Blow family moved to St. Louis in 1830 taking Scott with them and soon sold him due to the family’s financial problems. Dr. John Emerson, a military surgeon stationed at Jefferson Barracks, purchased Scott and Scott accompanied him to posts in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery had been prohibited by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. During this period, Scott married Harriet Robinson, also enslaved, at Fort Snelling. They had two children, Eliza and Lizzie. John Emerson married Irene Sanford during a brief stay in Louisiana. In 1842, the Scotts returned with Dr. and Mrs. Emerson to St. Louis, where Dr. Emerson died the following year. Mrs. Emerson hired out Dred, Harriet and the Scott children to work for other families keeping the majority of their wages.

On April 6th, 1846, Dred Scott and his wife Harriet filed suit against Irene Emerson for their freedom. It is not known for sure why he chose this particular time for the suit- for almost nine years, Scott had lived in free territories and had the standing to legally challenge his enslavement. Historians have considered three possibilities: He may have been dissatisfied with being hired out; Mrs. Emerson might have been planning to sell him; or

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Transcript

DECEMBER TERM, 1856.

DRED SCOTT
versus
JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.

Dred Scott, Plaintiff In Error, v. John F. A. Sandford.

I.

  1. Upon a writ of error to a Circuit Court of the United States, the transcript of the record of all the proceedings in the case is brought before this court, and is open to its inspection and revision.
  2. When a plea to the jurisdiction, in abatement, is overruled by the court upon demurrer, and the defendant pleads in bar, and upon these pleas the final judgment of the court is in his favor--if the plaintiff brings a writ of error, the judgment of the court upon the plea in abatement is before this court, although it was in favor of the plaintiff--and if the court erred in overruling it, the judgment must be reversed, and a mandate issued to the Circuit Court to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.
  3. In the Circuit Courts of the United States, the record must show that the case is one in which by the Constitution and laws of the United States, the court had jurisdiction--and if this does not appear, and the court gives judgment either for plaintiff or defendant, it is error, and the judgment must be reversed by this court--and the parties cannot by consent waive the objection to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.
  4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
  5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were nut numbered among its "people or citizen." Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.
  6. The o
  • How did dred scott die
  • Dred scott family