新澳门开奖结果

Dred Scott and Harriet Scott wood engravings after photographs. Photo by John H. Fitzgibbon, St. Louis. .

Top 20 Fascinating Facts about Dred Scott’s Decision (1857)

*Originally published by Diana C , Updated by Vanessa R in August 2023, Updated by Diana C in 2024

The Dred Scott case, also known as Dred Scott v. Sandford, was a decade-long fight for freedom by a Black enslaved man named Dred Scott. The case persisted through several courts and ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court, whose decision incensed abolitionists, gave momentum to the anti-slavery movement and served as a stepping stone to the Civil War.

In its ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States. Therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. One of the issues in court was whether a slave or African American was entitled to be able to sue in federal courts or not. Was Dred Scott free or a slave? Here are the Top 15 Fascinating Facts about  (1857).

1. Dred Scott was a slave

Dred Scott (1795 鈥� 1858), plaintiff in the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). Photo by Louis Schultze..

Dred Scott was a slave of an army surgeon, John Emerson. Scott had been taken from Missouri to posts in Illinois and what is now Minnesota for several years in the 1830s, before returning to Missouri. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 had declared the area including Minnesota free.

In 1846, Scott sued for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived in a free state and a free territory for a prolonged period of time. Finally, after eleven years, his case reached the Supreme Court. At stake were answers to critical questions, including slavery in the territories and citizenship of African-Americans.

2. The court held that Scott being black was excluded from American citizenship

The Court further ruled that as a black man Scott was excluded from United States citizenship and could not, therefore, bring suit. According to the opinion of the Court, African-Americans had not been part of the “Sovereign people” who made the Constitution.

The Court reasoned that, at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, persons of African descent were brought to the U.S. as property, and, whether later freed or not, could not become U.S. citizens.

3. It was decided that congress had no right to prohibit slavery

The Court also ruled that Congress never had the right to prohibit slavery in any territory. Any ban on slavery was a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibited denying property rights without due process of law. The Missouri Compromise was therefore unconstitutional.

4. Justice Benjamin Curtis had a dissenting opinion on the supreme court case

Photo by Library of Congress. .

Justice Benjamin Curtis held that African Americans born from slaves were American citizens. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were citizens of those States.

They also had other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors [the right to vote], on equal terms with other citizens.

5. The supreme court ruled in favour of Stanford

In the Supreme Court Case, Dred Scott v. Stanford, the court ruled in favor of Stanford. It overturned the lower court鈥檚 decision.

The Court cited that Dred Scott, had been a slave or was a slave and therefore, the court had 鈥減eculiar and limited jurisdiction鈥� and could only hear cases brought before them by citizens of the United States under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Dred Scott being a non-citizen did not have the legal standing to bring the case to court.

6. Chief Justice Taney was a supporter of slavery

The statues of Dred and Harriet Scott standing next to the Old Courthouse. Photo by Eric.

He wrote in the Court’s majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.

He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it.”

7. The Dred Scott decision was considered the worst decision rendered by the court

Many constitutional scholars consider the U.S. Supreme Court鈥檚 ruling in the Dred Scott case, formally Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford, to be the worst decision ever rendered by the Court.

In particular, it has been cited as the most egregious example in the history of the Court wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. Charles Evans Hughes, a later chief justice, famously characterized the decision as the Court鈥檚 great 鈥渟elf-inflicted wound.鈥�

8. Dred Scott later got freedom

Dred Scott did, in fact, get his freedom, but not through the courts. After he and his wife were later bought by the Blow family (who had sold Scott to Emerson in the first place), they were freed in 1857.

Scott died of tuberculosis in St. Louis the following year. Harriet Scott lived until June 1876, long enough to see the Civil War and the Thirteenth Amendment (1865) abolish slavery in the United States.

9. Justice McLean held an opinion in favour of Dred Scott

Photo by Library of Congress.

Justice McLean concluded that nothing in the Constitution required someone born in the United States to do anything more to become a citizen. “Any individual who has a permanent domicile in the state,” he wrote, can sue.

The fact that Scott’s ancestors had been brought to the country from Africa as slaves was irrelevant. He submitted a strongly worded dissent, pointing out that the majority had no legal precedent to support its decision.

10. Dred received financial support to sue from a family that had enslaved them

Neither Dred nor Harriet Scott could read or write and they needed both logistical and financial support to plead their case. They received it from their church, abolitionists and an unlikely source, the Blow family who had once owned them.

11. Mr. Scott tried to buy his freedom for $300

While he wasn’t working as a slave for white people from in 1846  he was able to save a small amount of money. He combined that with other savings to reach his goal of purchasing land.

Mr. Scott tried to buy his freedom for $300 and shortly after that, the freedom of his family at a larger cost than Mrs. Scott was able to pay under comparable circumstances. But Mrs. Emerson firmly objected.

12. Both Mr. Scott and Mrs. Scott in May of 1846 filed separate lawsuits in Missouri

, , via Wikimedia Commons

In May 1846, Mr. Scott and Mrs. Scott both filed a lawsuit in Missouri in response. The Missouri Compromise and nearly three decades of state history supported the straightforward legal notion that slavery is not permitted in free territories or free states, as required by both state and federal law. The Scotts were no longer slaves but rather were free people for all time because they had lived in a free region as well as a free state.

13. A Missouri judge dismissed the case because it lacked a witness

When the case was tried in court in 1847, a Missouri judge dismissed it because, amazingly, he claimed that the Scotts had neglected to provide a witness to attest that the family鈥攚hich at the time included one small daughter鈥攈ad been an enslaved one. They were obviously under captivity!

14. Surprisingly, a jury of six white men in 1850 found in favour of the Scotts

Surprisingly, the Scotts were successful in 1850 thanks to a jury of six white men. To the Missouri Supreme Court, however, Mrs. Emerson made a further appeal. Also, because she had moved to Massachusetts, she allowed her brother John F.A. Sanford to fill the role of the appointed appellant.

The case is officially known as Dred Scott v. Sandford as a result. It should be Sandford, not Sanford, due to a mistake committed by a clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1856 that was never fixed.

15. There was a happy ending for Mr. Scott, Mrs. Scott, and their two young daughters, Eliza and Lizzie

, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

But everything worked out well for Mr. and Mrs. Scott and their two young daughters, Eliza and Lizzie. A guy called Calvin Chaffee requested Mrs. Emerson to release the entire Scott family so that he could marry her. Chaffee held two positions: politician and abolitionist.

She grudgingly gave in to the cash requested by the woke sons of Peter Blow, who had been Mr. Scott’s first “owner,” and did so by giving in to their demands. The Scott family’s freedom was made possible by their wealth on May 26, 1857. Mr. Scott worked in St. Louis as a hotel porter before to becoming an ancestor on September 17, 1858. Mrs. Scott joined him as an ancestor 18 years later, in 1876.

16. The decision exacerbated sectional tensions between the North and South

The decision invalidated the Missouri Compromise, which had previously maintained a balance between slave and free states. This angered anti-slavery advocates in the North, who viewed it as a concession to pro-slavery forces and an expansion of slavery into new territories. The decision further polarized the political landscape, as both sides dug deeper into their entrenched positions. This made compromise and reconciliation seem increasingly impossible.

17. Passing of the Dred Scott Act in 1875

Photo by on

Shortly after the Dred Scott decision, Congress passed the Dred Scott Act to limit its reach and reiterate their stance against the Court’s ruling. The Act declared that no resident of any territory could be deprived of their rights to life, liberty, and property, essentially nullifying the decision’s impact on territories. However, the Act faced legal challenges and its effectiveness in actually hindering the spread of slavery remained debatable.

18. Ratification of the 13t Amendment

The 13th Amendment played a pivotal role in overturning the core principle of Dred Scott v. Sandford and fundamentally impacting the future of Black Americans in the United States. 

The 13th Amendment was passed by Congress in 1865 and ratified by the necessary number of states shortly after, formally abolishing slavery and involuntary servitude throughout the United States “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” The amendment was a direct response to the Dred Scott decision, which denied Black people citizenship and legal rights. 

19. The case was a landmark for civil rights movement

Photo by on

The blatant injustice of the decision enraged abolitionists and galvanized Northern opposition to slavery. It served as a rallying cry for civil rights activism, pushing individuals and organizations to fight for social and legal change. The limitations of the legal system in securing rights for Black people became starkly evident, laying the groundwork for future struggles to amend the Constitution and expand its protections.

20. Dred Scott’s story holds significance in discussions about racial justice and equality

The Dred Scott decision continues to serve as a stark reminder of the historical atrocities of slavery and the ongoing struggle for racial justice. It highlights the ways in which legal systems and societal norms can be used to marginalize and deny basic human rights.

Examining Dred Scott’s story encourages critical reflection on the historical roots of racial inequality and its ongoing manifestations in contemporary society.

Dred Scott’s life and legal battle were marked by hardship and injustice, yet they echoed far beyond his personal struggle. These 20 facts offer a glimpse into the complex web of legal, social, and political forces that intersected in his case, shaping the nation’s trajectory. But Dred Scott’s story holds significance beyond the historical record. It serves as a stark reminder of the enduring fight for racial justice and equality. The denial of his freedom exposed the deep-seated racism woven into the fabric of American society, highlighting the limitations of the law and the power of activism in pushing for change.