Dred Scott vs. Sandford|| Case Summary || 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 1857|| Slavery and Citizenship

Slavery and Citizenship

FACTS

In Dred Scott vs. Sandford Dred Scott, an enslaved African American, sued for his freedom in the U.S. courts, arguing that he had lived in free territories (Illinois and Wisconsin), making him legally free. His owner, John Sanford, contended that Scott was still enslaved. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

ISSUES

1. Could an enslaved person (or their descendant) be considered a U.S. citizen and have the right to sue in federal court?

2. Did residing in free territory make Scott legally free?

3. Was the Missouri Compromise (1820), which banned slavery in certain territories, constitutional?

   
   

JUDGEMENT

The U.S. Supreme Court (Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) ruled:

1. African Americans (enslaved or free) were not U.S. citizens and could not sue in federal court.

2. Living in free territory did not grant Scott freedom—enslaved people remained property.

3. The Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because Congress had no power to regulate slavery in territories under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, as it would deprive slave owners of their "property" rights.

   
   

SIGNIFICANCE

1. Strengthened slavery in the U.S. and denied African Americans citizenship rights.

2. Deepened divisions leading to the American Civil War (1861-1865).

3. Was later overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments (abolishing slavery and granting citizenship).

4. This case is often regarded as one of the worst decisions in U.S. Supreme Court history.

Vinita Pathak