Name______Date______

Dred Scott was born into slavery around 1795. Unlike many enslaved people who worked theirwhole lives on one plantation, Scott traveled withhis masters throughout the country. His first masterwas Peter Blow, a landowner from Southampton

County, Virginia. In 1818, the Blow family soldtheir land in Virginia and took their slaves west to acotton plantation in northern Alabama. However,growing cotton proved unprofitable for them, andthey moved once again. In 1830, the Blows settled in the bustling city ofSt. Louis, Missouri. They brought their slaves,including Dred Scott, with them. Little more isknown about Dred Scott’s early life. Even how hegot his name is a mystery. In his youth, he wascalled simply “Sam,” but he took the name “Dred

Scott” sometime between 1834 and 1846.

It is likely that Scott did various kinds of workfor the Blow family. As a child, he may have been aplaymate for the Blow children. When he arrivedwith them in Alabama, he probably picked cotton.

In St. Louis, he was hired out to other people whoneeded a worker.

On Free Soil

Around 1833, Dred Scott was sold

for $500 to John Emerson, a doctor in St. Louis. Emerson took Scott with him from St. Louis toFort Armstrong, Illinois. There Emerson served asan army medic, treating wounded and ill soldiers. Slavery was illegal in the state of Illinois according

to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, but Emersonpaid no attention to the law.

In 1836, Emerson took Scott further north to

Fort Snelling, in the Wisconsin Territory. Onceagain, Scott was illegally enslaved on free soil. TheMissouri Compromise of 1820 had outlawedslavery in the Wisconsin Territory. While at FortSnelling, Scott met other slaves who had beenbrought there. He married one, a young womannamed Harriet Robinson. Her owner sold her to Dr.Emerson. Together, Dred and Harriet Scott hadfour children. Two boys died in childhood, but twogirls, Eliza and Lizzie, lived to adulthood. No one knows exactly what type of work DredScott was made to do at Fort Snelling, but he wasoften hired out for small chores. In 1840, the

Scotts traveled by riverboat with Dr. Emersonback to St. Louis. When the doctor was away onduty for the army, the Scotts worked for Emerson’swife and family.

When Emerson died unexpectedly in 1843, theScott family became the property of Emerson’swidow, Irene. Mrs. Emerson continued to hireScott out. Scott offered to buy his freedom fromMrs. Emerson, but she refused. Later, in his courtcomplaint, Scott claimed that Mrs. Emerson beathim and imprisoned him in a small room.

Going to Court

In 1846, Dred and Harriet Scottfiled suit against Mrs. Emerson in a case thatwould ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme

Court. The Scotts claimed that they were freebecause they were taken from a slave state to freeterritories. In the first state trial, the jury sidedwith Dred Scott and set him free. Then on anappeal in 1852, the Missouri Supreme Courtreversed the jury’s decision and ordered Scott backinto slavery. Again, the Scotts were hired out toMrs. Emerson’s friends and family in St. Louis.

When Mrs. Emerson moved to New York, she lefther slaves in the service of her wealthy brother,John F. A. Sanford. The change in masters led theScotts to sue again, this time in the federal courts.

Scott tried to find a lawyer who would argue hiscase before the U.S. Supreme Court. He made aplea in a pamphlet.

A VOICE FROM THE PAST

I have no money to pay anybody at Washington tospeak for me. My fellow-men, can any of you helpme in my day of trial? Will nobody speak for me atWashington, even without hope of other reward thanthe blessings of a poor black man and his family?

DRED SCOTT, quoted in The Dred Scott Case:

Slavery and Citizenship

Eventually, he found lawyers to help him. Thecase finally reached the Supreme Court in 1856, asDred Scott v. Sandford. (John Sanford’s name wasmisspelled in official documents.)

Issues of the Case

Dred Scott’s case raised threeimportant questions. The first question was whether

Scott, as a Missouri slave, was a citizen with theright to sue in federal courts. The second questionwas whether being in a free territory meant that aslave was freed. The third question was whether the

Missouri Compromise, which outlawed slavery inthe Wisconsin Territory, was constitutional.The Supreme Court’s 7–2 ruling against Scottwas a great disappointment for Northernersopposed to the expansion of slavery. Supreme

Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney declared thatblack people, whether enslaved or free, were notcitizens of the United States. This meant that Scotthad no right to a trial in the first place. Furthermore,Taney ruled that living for a time in a freeterritory did not make Scott free. Taney held thatthe Missouri Compromise was unconstitutionalbecause slaves were property, and under the FifthAmendment, Congress could not take awayproperty. Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumnerreacted to Taney’s opinion with outrage.

A VOICE FROM THE PAST

I speak what cannot be denied when I declare that

the opinion of the Chief Justice in the case of Dred

Scott was more thoroughly abominable [disgusting]than anything of the kind in the history of courts.

Judicial baseness [lowness] reached its lowest pointon that occasion.

CHARLES SUMNER, quoted in The Dred Scott

Decision: Law or Politics?

Aftershocks

The Court’s decision ended all hopesfor cooperation in Congress. Lawmakers from theNorth and the South became more divided overslavery. The divisions led future presidentAbraham Lincoln to predict that “shocks andthroes and convulsions must ceaselessly follow.”Indeed, Dred Scott’s case moved the country closerto civil war.After the trial, Dred Scott and his family weresold to Taylor Blow, the son of Scott’s first owner.Taylor Blow had helped pay the Scotts’ legal fees,and he set the family free. A few months later, inearly 1858, Dred Scott died of tuberculosis andwas buried in St. Louis.

  1. What is the main idea of the selection?
  2. Dred Scott sued for his freedom several times
  3. Dred Scott was a poor, enslaved African American
  4. Dred Scott increased the nation’s division over slavery
  5. Dred Scott was sold into slavery several times
  6. What is the meaning of the word unprofitable in paragraph one?
  7. Expensive
  8. Worthless
  9. Lucrative
  10. Rewarding
  11. Which statement is the most important conclusion the reader may draw from the selection?
  12. “Dred Scott’s case moved the country closer to the civil war”
  13. “In the first state trial, the jury sided with Scott and set him free”
  14. “Dred Scott died of tuberculosis and was buried in St. Louis”
  15. “The courts decision ended all hopes for cooperation in Congress”
  1. “The Supreme Court ruling against Scott in 1857 helped lead to the Civil War.” Provide two details from the selection that support this idea.

______

  1. Each of these words could be used to describe the Dred Scott Case. Choose the word that you think best describes the Dred Scott Case.
  2. Unjust
  3. Monumental
  4. Decisive

Provide four details from the selection to support your choice. ______