At the start of the activity begin by providing context on the outcome of the Scott case if not previously shared.

The landmark case of Dred Scott v. Sandford lasted eleven years, before it was decided in 1857. In the ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. The opinion also stated that Congress had no authority to ban slavery from a Federal territory-effectively making the institution of slavery legal everywhere in the United States.

Supreme Court Justice Taney wrote in his majority opinion that Mr. Scott was not a citizen, therefore he could not bring suit in any court. According to Taney, Scott was never free because enslaved people were considered personal property which could be brought across state lines without changing their enslaved status. The ruling therefore raised questions about the constitutional rights of free African Americans and whether the Missouri Compromise could limit the spread of slavery in the country. 

Then explain to students that Justice Taney rested his case for the perpetuation and expansion of slavery upon the constitutional right to property.  Governments are formed to protect property, Taney argues, and the Constitution guarantees in the Bill of Rights that no property holder can be deprived of his property without due process of law. 

Provide students with a copy of the constitution and “talk back” to the ruling.

Constitutional Interpretation