8.18 C: Evaluate the Impact of Dred Scott v. Sandford

In 1857, the Supreme court heard a case concerning a Missouri slave named Dred Scott. Years earlier, Scott has traveled with his owner to Wisconsin, where slavery was banned by the Missouri Compromise. Upon his return to Missouri, Scott went to court to win his freedom. He argued that his stay in Wisconsin had made him a free man.

 

There were nine justices in the Supreme Court in 1857. Five of them, including Chief Justice Roger Taney, were from the South. Four were from the North. The justices had two key questions to decide. First, as a slave, the Court had to decide if Scott was a citizen. Second, the Court had to decide if his time in Wisconsin made him free. Chief Justice Taney wanted to know if the Missouri Compromise was constitutional.

 

The Decision

By a vote of five to four, the Court had decided that Scott could not sue for his freedom in a federal court because he was not a citizen. No African American, whether slave or free, was an American citizen. The Court also stated that, despite his stay in Wisconsin, Scott was NOT a free man. The reason was simple. The Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. Since slaves are property and property cannot be taken from people without due process of law (according to the Fifth Amendment), then slaveholders can take their slaves into free territories. Banning slavery in a territory meant that slaveholders were not allowed to take their property with them and that was unconstitutional.

 

The Reactions

The Dred Scott decision delighted slaveholders. They hoped that the issue of slavery in the territories had been settled—and in their favor. Many northerners, however, were enraged. This decision meant that slavery could continue to spread into territories once considered free.

Did you read this entire passage? Type your one-word response below.

What was Dred Scott arguing for in court?

• Compensation for his labor

• His freedom based on his stay in a free territory

• The right to vote

• Ownership of land

What was the Supreme Court's decision regarding Dred Scott's citizenship?

• No African American, whether slave or free, could be an American citizen

• He was a citizen because he sued in federal court

• Only free African Americans could be citizens

• He was a citizen because he lived in a free state

Why did the Supreme Court declare the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional?

• Because it deprived slaveholders of their property without due process

• Because it was not approved by the President

• Because it allowed slavery in free territories

• Because it limited Congress's power

What were the significant implications of the Dred Scott decision for the issue of slavery in the territories?

• It led to the expansion of slavery into new territories.

• It restricted the ability to regulate slavery in the territories.

• It abolished slavery in all territories.

• It had no impact on the issue of slavery in the territories.

What did the Court rule regarding Scott's freedom and the Missouri Compromise?

• Scott could sue for his freedom as a citizen

• Scott could not sue for his freedom as he was not a citizen

• The Missouri Compromise was considered constitutional

• The Court did not rule on Scott's case

How did slaveholders and northerners react differently to the decision in the Dred Scott Case?

• Slaveholders were pleased, while many northerners were outraged

• Slaveholders were outraged, while many northerners were pleased

• Both slaveholders and northerners were pleased

• Both slaveholders and northerners were outraged

What did the Supreme Court have to decide in the Dred Scott Case?

• If Scott was a citizen

• If Scott was guilty of a crime in his home state

• If Scott was a slave who could never be freed

• If Scott's stay in Wisconsin made him free

Organize these options into the correct categories:

What NORTHERNERS would have believed

What SOUTHERNERS would have believed

Groups:

(a) What northerners would have believed

,

(b) What southerners would have believed

• The Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional.

• I don’t understand why people want to take away my property.

• Dred Scott should be free.

• There is no such thing as a free territory.

• I am tempted to ignore the law.

• Slaves are people with rights and feelings.

• Slaves have no rights in the courts.

• People in a free territory are free.

• Slaves are property.

• The Missouri Compromise has already been repealed.