- I can articulate how slavery was at odds with the principle of justice.
- I can create an argument supported by evidence from primary sources.
- I can succinctly summarize the main ideas of historic texts.
Not able to be disputed.
Come back upon; rebound on.
With the help and support of someone or something.
Unable to be taken away.
Not able to be disputed.
Come back upon; rebound on.
Note: Due to a clerical error at the time, John Sanford’s name was misspelled (Sandford) in court records.
DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD (1857) MAJORITY OPINION (CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY)
The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive: It begins by declaring that, “[w]hen in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
|“The question before us is whether the class of persons described in the plea…are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them….||Notes|
|It then proceeds to say: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is [sic] life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”|
|The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration, for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted, and instead of the sympathy of mankind to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation….|
|Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void, and that neither Dred Scott himself nor any of his family were made free by being carried into this territory, even if they had been carried there by the owner with the intention of becoming a permanent resident….|
|Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution.”|
DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD (1857) DISSENTING OPINION (JUSTICE BENJAMIN CURTIS)
|One mode of approaching this question is, to in- quire who were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution…||Notes|
|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 not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors [the right to vote], on equal terms with other citizens…|
|I dissent, therefore, from that part of the opinion of the majority of the court, in which it is held that a person of African descent cannot be a citizen of the United States…|
It will not be questioned that, when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted, the allowance and the prohibition of negro slavery were recognised subjects of municipal legislation; every State had in some measure acted thereon; and the only [federal] legislative act concerning the territory — the ordinance of 1787, which had then so recently been passed — contained a prohibition of slavery. The purpose and object of the clause being to enable Congress to provide a body of municipal law for the government of the settlers, the allowance or the prohibition of slavery comes within the known and recognised scope of that purpose and object…
Slavery, being contrary to natural right, is created only by municipal law. This is not only plain in itself, and agreed by all writers on the subject, but is inferable from the Constitution, and has been explicitly declared by this court. The Constitution refers to slaves as “persons held to service in one State, under the laws thereof.” …
|It was certainly understood by the Convention which framed the Constitution, and has been so understood ever since, that, under the power to regulate commerce, Congress could prohibit the importation of slaves; and the exercise of the power was restrained till 1808. A citizen of the United States owns slaves in Cuba, and brings them to the United States, where they are set free by the legislation of Congress. Does this legislation deprive him of his property without due process of law? If so, what becomes of the laws prohibiting the slave trade? If not, how can a similar regulation respecting a Territory violate the fifth amendment of the Constitution? …|
|For these reasons, I am of opinion that so much of the several acts of Congress as prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude within that part of the Territory of Wisconsin … were constitutional and valid laws.|
- Summarize the main points of the Dred Scot decision in your own words.
- How does the majority opinion of the Supreme Court commit a great injustice against Black Americans?
- Summarize the main points of the dissenting opinion from the case in your own words.
- How does the dissent support constitutional principles and liberties for Black Americans and counter the arguments made by the majority decision?
More from this Category
Dred Scott v. Sandford | Homework Help from the Bill of Rights Institute
The Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857 was brought to the Supreme Court just four years before the start of the Civil War. Dred Scott sued his master for his freedom and Judge Robert Taney ultimately ruled two things. First, African Americans were not citizens and had no right to sue in court. Second, Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban slavery from the states. This case is considered one of the worst rulings in the history of the Supreme Court.
Dred Scott v. Sandford DBQ
Use this Lesson to help students understand the attempts made to resolve the issue of slavery in the territories.
“The Declaration … thus frittered away:” Completing the story of Dred Scott | BRIdge from the Past
How can images in a newspaper give a more complete story of behind a landmark Supreme Court case? In this episode of BRIdge from the Past, Mary explores pictures of Dred Scott’s family in Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, v. IV, no. 82, from June 27, 1857. Pictured in the newspaper were Scott’s wife, Harriet, and their children, Eliza and Lizzie. How do these images allow us to understand the historic Dred Scott case on a personal level? What additional questions about the subjects might these images raise?
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. Sanford. This case deals with the issues of slavery, states’ rights, and the interpretation of our Founding documents. This lesson focuses on the question of how the two sides in the Dred Scott decision interpreted the same Founding documents and came to such different conclusions.
James Buchanan and the Dred Scott Decision
During the mid-Nineteenth Century, all three branches of the United States government wrestled with the question of whether the unrestricted spread of slavery was protected by the Constitution. In this lesson, students will evaluate President James Buchanan’s reaction to the Dred Scott decision in light of our nation’s highest principles.