The Dred Scott Decision


This page describes the Dred Scott Decision


Home >> United States History >> Civil War >> Causes and Effects >> Dred Scott


Civil War

Causes and Effects
Civil War Interactive
Civil War: Challenge and Discovery
Civil War Battles
Gettysburg in Depth
People of the Civil War
Union and Confederacy
Women in the Civil War
African Americans in the Civil War
Death in the Civil War
Abraham Lincoln: IN DEPTH
Civil War Online Activities
Civil War Printable Activities
Make Your Own Map!

Causes of the Civil War

Missouri Compromise
Nat Turner Rebellion
Wilmot Proviso
Underground Railroad
Compromise of 1850
Kansas-Nebraska Act
Ostend Manifesto
Dred Scott Decision
John Brown Rebellion
Election of Abraham Lincoln

Effects of the Civil War

Emancipation Proclamation
The Division of Virginia
Scalawags and Carpetbaggers
Jim Crow Laws
13th Amendment
14th Amendment
15th Amendment

Major American Wars

French and Indian War
Revolutionary War
War of 1812
Mexican-American War
Civil War

Dred Scott

Dred Scott

Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom in a case presented to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1856. The case, Dred Scott v. Sandford, is one of the most famous cases of all time.

Scott’s lawyer argued that although he and his wife were slaves, since they had lived in the Illinois Territory (where their owner, Dr. John Emerson often traveled to), where slavery was illegal, they were entitled to their freedom. The case went through various local courts until it was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. According to Chief Justice Roger Taney, Dred Scott and his wife were not entitled to bring the lawsuit before the Supreme Court because they were not official citizens of the United States. Seven out of the nine justices agreed. In essence, the court declared that slaves had no rights and no claim to freedom. In addition, Taney invoked the Fifth Amendment, claiming that private property could not be taken from its owner without due process. In addition, the court also ruled that the institution of slavery could not be prohibited in new territories, and that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional (which prohibited slavery in some of the lands acquired in the Louisiana Purchase ). To abolitionists, the decision confirmed their fears that Southerners were intent on extending slavery throughout the nation. The ruling increased the tension between politicians in the North and the South and reduced the chance for any diplomacy or negotiations that may have prevented war.