-
New Owner
In 1830, Dred Scott was sold to a new slave owner. He was a U.S. army surgeon named Dr. John Emerson. -
Period: to
Scott Live in Illinois
During this time, Dred Scott lived with Emerson in Illinois. Illinois had prohibited slavery in its constitution since 1819. -
Period: to
Dred Scott Lives in Wisconsin Territory
John Emerson moves Scott and his wife to Fort Snelling in Wisconsin in the Wisconsin territory. While there Emerson was called down to Missouri, but left Scott at the fort. He leased out his labor to other members of the military. By the end of 1838 Emerson is again moved to Louisiana. He then brings his slaves with him. -
The Scotts' Daughter is born
While en route to Louisiana, the Scotts' had a daughter. She was born on a steamboat between a free state and territory. This technically made her a free citizen since she was born in a place that banned slavery. -
Dr. Emerson dies
Seminole War History While serving in the Seminole wars and other armed conflicts, Dr. Emerson was killed. Upon his death in 1843, his widow began to lease out the labor of their slaves. -
Scott Petitions for Freedom
Other instances of slaves buying freedom After working for Emerson's widow for three years, Dred Scott attempted to buy freedom for him and his family. His request was denied, which then spurred him to take legal action. -
Period: to
First trial
Using previous cases such as Somersett .v. Stewart and Rachel .v. Walker, Scott argued that the extended time that he spent in free territory demanded his freedom. Also, he said that since his daughter was born in a free territory, then she was a US citizen. The court ruled against Scott on the technicality of him not being able to prove that he was enslaved by Emerson's widow. -
Period: to
Second Trial
In 1847, Scott was granted another trial. Due to various factors such as disease and fire, the case was delayed until 1850. The trial was appealed by Emerson in the Missouri Supreme Court. This time, the jury supported Scott and his family. However, immediately upon hearing the news Emerson again appealed the case. In 1852 the final decision was reversed and Scott and his family were ruled against, and thereby still enslaved. -
Period: to
Third Trial
Since Emerson's widow had moved to the north, she granted her brother, John Sanford, ownership of the slaves. Scott then sued his owner again in Federal court. Using the rulings of the previous trials, the courts again ruled against Scott. After the decision was given, Scott appealed for a final time in the Supreme Court of the United States. -
Grounds for Supreme Court Appeal
Since the Scotts lived in a free territory for an extended period of time, they argued that they could not still be enslaved. Under the Missouri Compromise, the institution of slavery was banned in all new states north of latitude 36 30. They believed that they should have been granted emancipation since slavery had been illegal in the states in which they resided. -
Dissenting Opinions
There was not a central dissenting opinion, but two concurrent dissentions. The first dissent was written by Justice McLean. He said that there was no basis saying that blacks were not allowed to be citizens. He cited how during the time of the ratification of the Constitution, blacks could vote in five staes.
Justice Curtis Argued that since the court had decided it did not have jurisdiction, it should have not passed any further judgement. The case should have remained in the state. -
Concurrent Views on Majority
The main concurrence was authored by justice Nelson who was joined by justice Grier. While they agreed with the majority on the overall ruling, their views of the smaller aspects of the case were different. They believed that it was the state's right to decided on the emancipation of slaves who had went to free territory. Since Missouri had already ruled against Scott, they too believed that he should still be a slave. -
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court ruled that although African Americans were able to gain citizenship in several states, they were property and would never be citizens of the United States. The vote on the case was 7-2. The justices who voted for it were (Chief Justice) Taney, Wayne, Catron, Nelson, Daniel, Grier, and Campbell. Those who voted against it were McLean and Curtis. -
Majority Decision
The majority decision, authored by Chief Justice Roger Taney, decided that slaves were always property no matter their location. The fact that Dred Scott had lived in a free territory did not give him his emancipation. Furthermore, since Scott was considered as property, he did not share the right to sue. This made his plea worthless and he remained a slave. -
Change in previous US Acts
Alongside their ruling against Scott, the court also decided that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional. They said that they states, not Congress, should be the ones who decide on whether or not to have slavery. This was significant because it was only the second time in US history that the Supreme Court ruled an act of Congress unconstitutional. It further strengthened the power of judicial review. -
Superseded by
Although not superseded by any Supreme Court case, the 13th and 14th amendments relate to it. The 13th amendment abolished slavery and the 14th amendment which refined citizenship laws and granted citizenship to former slaves who had been freed by the 13th amendment.
