Station 1 DBQ: Taken from the Dred Scott Case Collection
http://library.wustl.edu/vlib/dredscott/index.htm
“The decision was 7 to 2. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered
the opinion of the Court.
. . . Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country,
and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community
formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United
States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges,
and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen? One of
which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United
States in the cases specified in the Constitution.
We think they [people of African ancestry] are not [citizens], 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.
. . . [T]he legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of
Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their
descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the
people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.
For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would
exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they
considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who
were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State
whenever they pleased...to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without
molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be
punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all
subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs,
and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the
subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and
insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."
Questions:
1. According to the reading above, why does Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney believe
that Dred Scott is not a citizen?
2. In what ways are slaves considered not citizens? (What examples were given?)
3. Why did Taney consider it a problem for slaves to be citizens?
4. Did the constitution protect slavery? Do you think this was the intention when it was
written?
Station 2 DBQ:
Political Cartoon taken from the
Dred Scott Case Collection
Figures left to right clockwise:
John C. Breckinridge dances with
James Buchanan.
Dred Scott seated plays the violin.
Lincoln dances with African
American woman.
John Bell dances with Native
American.
Stephen Douglas dances with a
sovereign in rags.
1. What do you see in the cartoon? Make a list. Include objects, people, and any
characteristics that seem to be exaggerated.
2. What is happening in the cartoon?
3. What is the cartoonist's message?
4. Do you agree or disagree with the cartoonist's message? Explain your answer.
5. This cartoonist has a particular point of view about the impact of the Court’s Dred
Scott decision on the election of 1860. THINK ABOUT IT: Use your imagination and
predict what a cartoonist would draw who held the opposite point of view about the
case. What might his or her message be? What images, symbols, and words would he or
she use? DO: Now draw a sketch of what an opposing cartoonist might draw.
Station 3:
Dred Scott lived in both free and slave states and territories. As you read through his travels, find
each location on the map and state whether the area was free or slave. Your answer should read
what state it was and whether it was a free state or slave state. Then, explain whether your think
based on your results, whether Dred Scott should have been a free man or a slave.
1. Scott was born in Virginia around 1799. His master was Peter Blow.
2. In 1830, Scott and Blow moved from Alabama to Missouri.
3. Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon in the U.S. Army, bought Scott and moved him to Rock Island,
Illinois in 1834.
4. In 1836, Scott and Emerson moved to Fort Snelling, Wisconsin Territory. Fort Snelling was on
the west side of the Mississippi River, north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes’ north latitude,
and north of Missouri. Today this location is in the state of Minnesota. Emerson bought a slave
named Harriet and Scott married her with Emerson's consent in 1836.
5. In 1838, Emerson and the Scotts moved to Missouri. The Scotts had two daughters, Eliza, born
around 1843, and Lizzie, born around 1850.
6. Emerson died in 1843, and he left his possessions, including the Scotts, to his widow. Mrs.
Emerson moved and left her brother, John Sanford, in charge of her estate. The Scotts lived in St.
Louis, Missouri when they sued Sanford, who had moved to New York.
7. Scott sued Sanford because he claimed that Sanford held him illegally. Scott claimed that he had
become a free man as soon as he lived in a free territory or state. He claimed that he was taken
against his will to a slave territory or state.
Station 4:Dred Scott Case Background Information
Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia around 1799. In 1834, a man named Dr. Emerson
bought Dred Scott and they moved to Illinois, a non-slave (free) state. In 1836, they moved to
Minnesota, also a non- slave state. There, Scott married another slave named Harriet. In 1838,
the Emersons and the Scotts moved to Missouri, a slave state. In 1843, Dr. Emerson died,
leaving his wife possession of the Scotts.
Dred Scott sued Mrs. Emerson. He claimed that he was no longer a slave because he had
become free when he lived in a free state. The jury decided that Scott and his family should be
free. The Emersons did not like the decision and appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court in
1852. That court said that Missouri does not have to follow the laws of another state. As a slave
state, Missouri's laws meant that Scott and his family were not free.
Sanford moved to New York and left the Scotts in Missouri. Scott sued Sanford again in a
federal court. Federal courts decide cases where the citizens live in different states. In 1854, the
U.S. Court for the District of Missouri heard the case. Sanford won the case and Scott then
appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the country.
In 1857, Scott and his lawyers appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Scott v. Sanford
the Court states that Scott should remain a slave, that as a slave he is not a citizen of the U.S.
and thus not eligible to bring suit in a federal court, and that as a slave he is personal property
and thus has never been free.
The court further declares unconstitutional the provision in the Missouri Compromise that
permitted Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories. In fact, the compromise is already under
assault as a coalition of political leaders—some slaveholders, o thers westerners who resent the
federal government's ability to dictate the terms of statehood—claim that territorial residents
should be able to determine on what terms they enter the union. The decision in Scott v.
Sanford greatly alarms the antislavery movement and intensifies the growing division of opinion
within the United State. The newly-formed Republican Party, which opposes the expansion of
slavery, vigorously criticizes the decision and the court.
In 1857, Mrs. Emerson remarries. Since her new husband opposes slavery, the Scotts are given
their freedom.
Directions - Read the text below and then answer the questions that follow on your own paper using
complete sentences.
1. Why did Dred Scott believe he should be free?
2. How was the first court case decided?
3. What did the Missouri Supreme Court say?
4. What did the Supreme Court decide? Why?
6. What political party was formed in opposition to slavery?
7. How do the Scott's get their freedom?
Station 5
Classifying Arguments in the Case
The following is a list of arguments used in Dred Scott v. Sandford. Read through each argument
and decide whether it supports Dred Scott's side in favor of his freedom (SCOTT), Sanford's
position in favor of Scott's continued slavery (SANFORD), both sides (BOTH), or neither side
(NONE). Label each argument next to the number on your own paper.
1. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 outlawed slavery forever in certain areas. Dred Scott's
owner took him to these free areas. Thus, Scott became free forever.
2. Dred Scott is not a citizen because if he were he would be entitled to all of the privileges
and immunities of a citizen, one of which is the right of free movement. It is clear that the
laws governing slavery do not permit this, thus he cannot be a citizen.
3. Even before the Constitution, some states allowed blacks to vote. The Constitution does
not say explicitly that blacks cannot be citizens.
4. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Neither Congress nor states can pass
laws that conflict with the Constitution.
5. It was law in many states and had been common law in Europe for centuries that a slave
who legally traveled to a free area automatically became free.
6. In the case of Strader v. Graham (1850), the Supreme Court of the United States heard
the case of three slaves who had been taken from Kentucky to Indiana and Ohio and then
back to Kentucky. The Court declared that the status of the slave depended on the laws of
Kentucky, not Ohio.
7. In 1865, the states ratified the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution making slavery
illegal.
8. The Constitution recognized the existence of slavery. Therefore, the men who framed and
ratified the Constitution must have believed that slaves and their descendants were not to
be citizens.
9. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 that outlawed slavery in some future states was
unconstitutional because Congress does not have the authority to deny property rights of
law-abiding citizens. Thus, Scott was always a slave in areas that were free.
10. At the time of the Dred Scott case, women and minors could sue in federal court even
though they could not vote.
Station 6
View the three photos of monuments to Dred Scott below and answer the following questions:
Dedicated by the African Historical and Genealogical Research Society
1. Why do you think the African Historical and Genealogical Research Society paid for a
memorial to Dred Scott?
2. What three facts do they include about the Supreme Court's decision?
3. If you were to create a memorial to Dred Scott, what would it say? What would it look
like? Draw the memorial on a separate sheet of paper. Be sure to include an inscription.