What did the Dred Scott Case mean?

Answer 1

The decision was a stunning blow against supporters of the abolition of slavery. The decision held that Blacks were not citizens of the US and lacked any standing to sue in court. It also declared that the congress could not constitutionally ban slavery, blacks could not sue in court, and that slaves (as property) could not be taken from their owners without due process. The court never overturned the dred Scott decision, but did declare in 1873 that the 14th amendment to the constitution had overruled parts of the dred Scott decision.

Answer 2

The Dred Scott case was a peculiar one and one that deeply angered the anti slavery abolitionists. The ultimate decision in the case seemed to validate the institution of slavery, both in the South and even in free US States & Territories in the North.

Here are the main points that made the case so well known, both in the 1850's and in our present times.

In the 1830's a slave by the name of Dred Scott traveled with his slave owner Dr. John Emerson. Emerson was a surgeon with the US Army, and his home was in Missouri. The two traveled to Illinois and the the Wisconsin Territory. Both places had outlawed slavery. Dr. Emerson died in 1843, and Dred Scott wanted to buy his freedom. An offer of such was presented to Dr. Emerson's widow who refused the offer.

Scott decided to sue for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived in two slave free areas in the US, namely Illinois & Wisconsin. The case became known as the Dred Scott v. Sanford, Sanford acting as executor of Dr. Emerson's estate.

The case went to trial in Missouri in 1847. After a series of appeals & contradictory court decisions, the case found its way to the US Supreme Court in 1856. The Court's decision focused on two important issues:

A. Was Dred Scott a citizen of the United States giving him the right to sue;

Clearly, at the time of course, slaves were not citizens. Scott's attorney contended that Scott's residence in Illinois & the Territory of Wisconsin, rendered him a free man, and therefore a citizen; and

B. Did Congress or any entity have the right to prohibit slavery in the territories?

If the Court said Congress had no such right, then Scott would be neither free or a citizen. This would nullify Scott's right to file a civil lawsuit.

In March of 1857, the Court ruled that Scott was not a citizen and thus he was a slave; and

Scott lacked any standing at all in Court because he was Black.

The Court followed up their decision with a long analysis of the situation. The bottom line however, was a blow against the anti slavery movement and a Supreme Court ruling that slavery was Constitutional.