WhoA Missouri slave What When Where Why Concept Development: Dredd Scott was a slave who argued for his freedom to the Supreme Court. Dredd Scott vs. Sanford was the name of the court case, which changed history. The Dred Scott decision Until 1857 some slaves who lived in free states or territories were successful when they sued for their freedom. Biddy Mason had done this in California. The case of another slave, Dred Scott, however, went all the way to the Supreme Court. On March 6, 1857, the court announced a decision about slavery in the territories that shook the nation. Scott was a slave who was bought by an Army doctor in Missouri. In the 1830s, the doctor moved to Southern Illinois, a free state, and then to Wisconsin territory, where slavery was banned by the Northwest ordinance of Later the family returned to Missouri, where the doctor died. Upon the doctor’s death Scott went to court to win his freedom. His argument was that when he lived in Wisconsin this made him a free man. The Supreme Court justices had two major questions before them, first, as a slave, was Dred Scott a citizen who had the right to bring a case before a federal court? Second, did his time in Wisconsin make him a free man? Chief Justice Taney hoped to use the Scott case to settle the slavery controversy once and for all. So he asked the Court to consider two more questions: Did Congress have the power to make any laws at all concerning slavery in the territories? And, if so, was the Missouri Compromise a constitutional use of that power? Pair-Share: What other questions did the Supreme Court have to consider? Underline them _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ ____________________ _______________ _______________ _______________ Name _______________________________ PER. _______

The Dred Scott Decision Step #1: Read the statements carefully. Step #2: Read the text. Underline the information and write your answers in complete sentences. 1.As a slave, was Dred Scott a Citizen who had the right to bring a case before a federal court or not? _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ 2.Did his time in Wisconsin make him a free man? _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________. 3. Why did Congress not have the power to make any laws at all concerning slavery in the territories?____________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ ____________________________. 4.Was the Missouri Compromise a Constitutional use of that power? Why or why not? _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________. The chief justice began by reviewing the facts of Dred Scott’s case. By a vote of five to four, the Court had decided that Scott could not sue for his freedom in a federal court because he was not a citizen. Nor, said Taney, could Scott become a citizen. Second, Taney declared that the Court had rejected Scott’s argument that his stay in Wisconsin had made him a free man. The reason was simple. The Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. Taney’s argument went something like this. Slaves are property. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says that property cannot be taken from people without due process of law—that is, a proper court hearing. Taney reasoned that banning slavery in a territory is the same as taking property from slaveholders who would like to bring their slaves into that territory. And that is unconstitutional. Rather than banning slavery, he said, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to protect the property rights of slaveholders in a territory. The Dred Scott decision delighted slaveholders. They hoped that, at long last, the issue of slavery in the territories had been settled—and in their favor. Many Northerners, however, were stunned and enraged by the Court’s ruling. The New York Independent expressed outrage in a bold headline: The Decision of the Supreme Court Is the Moral Assassination of a Race and Cannot be Obeyed!

The Dred Scott Decision – 1.The Dred Scott Decision said that: slaves were property and not considered citizens. 2. The Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional (invalid) 3. It allowed slavery to spread into any new territories because a slave owner could take to his slaves to any state or territory it wanted to. CFU How would Northerners feel about this decision? How would Southerners feel about this decision? ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ Pair-share A-B In your own words, tell me what the Dred Scott decision was. ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

Closure 1. In your own words, tell me two things you learned today. 2. Describe the Dred Scott Decision. 3. What did you learn today about describing the Dred Scott Decision? Why is that important to you? (pair-share) Step #1: Read the graphic organizer on page 148 in your workbook. Step #2: answer the questions Step #3: Complete the graphic organizer by listing the information in the appropriate column.

Importance It is important to be able to describe the Dred Scott Decision because it helps you to: Understand why the Civil War started. Recall it as a landmark Supreme Court decision. do well on district and state (CST) assessments. CFU Why is it important to describe the Dred Scott Decision? You may give me one of my reasons or one of your own. Which reason means the most to you? Why?