Unit
Years: 1846-1857
Freedom & Equal Rights
Historical Events, Movements, and Figures
Prior to this lesson, students should be familiar with the institution of slavery and its outsized impact on the American economy in both the North and the South. The Dred Scott case also requires that students have a familiarity with the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Missouri Compromise.
You may want to consider prior to teaching this lesson:
You may want to consider after teaching this lesson:
By suing for their freedom in state and then federal courts, Dred and Harriet Scott forced the nation to face the fundamental questions of race, property, and power. The 1857 United States Supreme Court decision declaring that enslaved people and even their free descendants were not citizens and that Congress had no power to prohibit the institution of slavery from the western territories, intensified the conflicts that culminated in the Civil War.
By the early 19th century, tensions were rising between the North and South over the issue of slavery. With the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 and subsequent territorial expansions, the question of whether slavery would be allowed in new states became increasingly contentious. Missouri sought admission to the Union as a slave state in 1819. This raised concerns among Northern lawmakers, who feared that admitting another slave state would upset the delicate balance of power between free and slave states in Congress.
A compromise was proposed by Speaker of the House Henry Clay to admit Missouri as a slave state while also admitting Maine as a free state, thereby maintaining the balance of free and slave states in the Senate. This became known as the Missouri Compromise in 1820. The most significant aspect of the Missouri Compromise was the establishment of a geographic line at 36°30′ north latitude. This line delineated the boundary between free and slave territories in the Louisiana Territory (excluding Missouri). Slavery would be prohibited north of this line, while it could continue south of it.
In 1824 Winny, an enslaved woman, sued for her freedom because her enslaver had held her captive in Northwest territories that did not allow slavery. Winny v. Whitesides alias Prewitt was heard by the Supreme Court of Missouri. The court determined that if an enslaver took an enslaved person into a free territory and established residence there, the enslaved person would be freed and would remain free even if returned to slave territory, The case established the state’s judicial criteria for an enslaved person’s right to freedom and should have set the legal precedent for the case that Dred Scott would later bring to the fore.
Dred Scott was born in Virginia in the early 19th century. His parents were both enslaved and eventually he was held in slavery by John Emerson, a military doctor, who traveled throughout the Northwestern territories for his job. Emerson brought Scott to the free state of Illinois where they lived until 1836, and then to the free territory of Wisconsin until 1840. Dred Scott thus spent at least eight years living in places where slavery was illegal. During his time Scott met Harriett Scott whom he married in 1836 and they had two children.
When Emerson died, his widow would not allow Scott to purchase his and his family’s freedom, instead opting to send them to be enslaved by her brother in New York. The Scotts rightfully feared that without their freedom they might be separated. With the financial backing of Emerson’s son, a longtime friend of Dred Scott, the family brought suit in 1846 against their new owner John F. A. Sanford to gain their freedom. At the core of the case was that Scott, having lived in free territories, protected by the Missouri Compromise, should have been freed and his status as a slave made illegal. Over the course of eleven years, the case was tried many times on appeal at the state level and finally made its way to the Supreme Court where some of the justices wished to use the case to resolve political controversies regarding the legality of the Missouri Compromise.
The landmark case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, decided in 1857, had immediate and long-term implications for Americans. 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 Dred Scott decision stated that Congress had no authority to ban slavery in federal territories, meaning territories before they became states. This did not make slavery legal everywhere in the United States, but it did mean that slavery could legally expand into all U.S. territories, which alarmed many Northerners and intensified sectional tensions.
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.
Though the Scotts lost their case they were eventually freed through the work of their allies in 1857. The implications from the case however would have long-lasting impacts on American society causing deep divisions and bringing the country closer to Civil War. In the late 1850s, members of the Republican Party began to ally themselves with antislavery advocates and oppose the expansion of slavery more fervently, culminating with Lincoln winning the presidency in 1860, the same year the Civil War began.
Books and Journal Articles
Allen, Austin. Origins of the Dred Scott case: Jacksonian jurisprudence and the Supreme Court, 1837-1857. University of Georgia Press, 2010.
Balkin, Jack M., and Sanford Levinson. “Thirteen Ways of Looking at Dred Scott.” Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 82 (2007): 49.
Finkelman, Paul. “Scott v. Sandford: The Court’s most dreadful case and how it changed history.” Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 82 (2007): 3.
Multimedia Sources
American Experience. 2013. Season 25, episode 12, “What Was the Dred Scott Decision?” PBS.
Longoria, Julia, ed. 2017. “American Pendulum II.” In More Perfect. New York Public Radio. Podcast. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/american-pendulum-ii-dred-scott.
Websites
Library of Congress: Research Guide to Dred Scott
The documents associated with the Dred Scott case include troubling and racist ideals about the Scott family and African Americans. It is important to prepare your students for this before reading any of the documents and acknowledge the troubling nature of these comments and viewpoints. It is also important throughout this unit to keep in mind your choice of vocabulary in describing African Americans during this period in history. For example, there are many sources which use the “slave” and “owner” to describe an enslaved person. Adopting language to identify the “owner” as aides a more factual and humanizing description than “slave”.
Several of the sources in this lesson also contain racist language or images that may be disturbing to students. Many primary documents of the time period also contain references to “negro” or “negroes”. It is important to clarify that students should be mindful with language that they use to discuss the past, when terms differ from what is most appropriate to use today. You may find the Racial and Ethnic Identity guide from APA to be a helpful tool for your own reference when introducing different terms.
It is imperative that sources be shared with students with great care, as they can trigger painful emotions in students, such as anger, sadness, fear, and shame. African American students may feel that their identity is under attack particularly if responses within the class community are not respectful. Be sure to create or revisit classroom expectations for behavior that are grounded in respect and empathy for all and provide clear expectations for how students should engage with this content. It is important to inform students before sharing any potentially disturbing source materials and offer a clear rationale for why you are sharing the source.
Many of the primary sources particularly around legal suits may use words that students may be unfamiliar with. Provide access to a dictionary to encourage students to look up words that they do not know.
The Missouri Compromise was a significant piece of legislation passed by the United States Congress in 1820. It aimed to address the issue of the expansion of slavery into new territories acquired by the United States. The Missouri Compromise was a landmark legislative agreement aimed at preserving the delicate balance between free and slave states in the United States, but it ultimately failed to resolve the deeper divisions over the issue of slavery.
In 1857 when Dred Scott, an enslaved American, brought suit against his current enslaver, John F. A. Sanford, the country was embroiled in a heated debate over the influence of the institution of slavery on the country. Scott sued for his family’s freedom because he believed that his time living in free territories, protected by the Missouri Compromise, made his status as a slave illegal. Mr. Scott’s case rose to national prominence because it represented many of the concerns from both sides of the debate. The case raised questions about what constitutional rights African Americans had and whether the Missouri Compromise could limit the spread of slavery in the country.
The majority opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Taney, called into question many ideas associated with citizenship and the status of African Americans in the United States. Americans across the country reacted strongly to the decision and the implications of the case would have long-lasting impacts on American society.
Select the activities and sources you would like to include in the student view and click “Launch Student View.”
It is highly recommended that you review the Teaching Tips and sources before selecting the activities to best meet the needs and readiness of your students. Activities may utilize resources or primary sources that contain historical expressions of racism, outdated language or racial slurs.
First read and review the student context. Then together, as a class, read the following transcript excerpts from the Supreme Court case. Be sure to note for students that because this is a legal document, it will not flow as easily as a story. As you read with the class (students or yourself can be the readers), clarify terminology and be sure to be mindful of the impact of racist terms and ideology as referenced in the Teacher Tips.
Break students into partners to delve further into the document to respond to the discussion question:
Bring students back together to review their responses as a whole. Depending on which activity you will explore next you may want to consider sharing the following case overview at the conclusion of the activity or at the start of the next activity.
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 Dred Scott decision stated that Congress had no authority to ban slavery in federal territories, meaning territories before they became states. This did not make slavery legal everywhere in the United States, but it did mean that slavery could legally expand into all U.S. territories, which alarmed many Northerners and intensified sectional tensions. 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.
Excerpt from the Supreme Court Transcript of the trial of Dred Scott, Plaintiff in Error, v. John F. A. Sanford, , 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856).
…In the year 1834, the plaintiff was a …slave belonging to Dr. Emerson, who was a surgeon in the army of the United States. In that year, 1834, said Dr. Emerson took the plaintiff from the State of Missouri to the military post at Rock Island in the State of Illinois, and held him there as a slave until the month of April or May, 1836, At the time last mentioned, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff from said military post at Rock Island to the military post at Fort Snelling, situate on the west bank of the Mississippi river, in the Territory known as Upper Lousiana, acquired by the United States of France, and situated north of the latitude of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north, and north of the State of Missouri. Said Dr. Emerson held the plaintiff in slavery at said Fort Snelling, from said last-mentioned date until the year 1838.
In the year 1835, Harriet who is named in the second count of the plaintiff's declaration, was the … slave of Major Taliaferro, who belonged to the army of the United States. In that year, 1835, said Major Taliaferro took said Harriet to said Fort Snelling, a military post, situated as hereinbefore stated, and kept her there as a slave until the year 1836, and then sold and delivered her as a slave at said Fort Snelling unto the said Dr. Emerson hereinbefore named. Said Dr. Emerson held said Harriet in slavery at said Fort Snelling until the year 1838.
In the year 1836, the plaintiff and said Harriet, at said Fort Snelling, with the consent of said Dr. Emerson, who then claimed to be their master and owner, intermarried, and took each other for husband and wife. Eliza and Lizzie, named in the third count of the plaintiff's declaration, are the fruit of that marriage. Eliza is about fourteen years old, and was born on board the steamboat Gipsey, north of the north line of the State of Missouri, and upon the river Mississippi. Lizzie is about seven years old, and was born in the State of Missouri, at the military post called Jefferson Barracks.
In the year 1838, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff and said Harriet and their said daughter Eliza, from said Fort Snelling to the State of Missouri, where they have ever since resided.
Before the commencement of this suit, said Dr. Emerson sold and conveyed the plaintiff, said Harriet, Eliza, and Lizzie, to the defendant, as slaves, and the defendant has ever since claimed to hold them and each of them as slaves.
At the times mentioned in the plaintiff's declaration, the defendant claiming to be owner as aforesaid, laid his hands upon said plaintiff, Harriet, Eliza and Lizzie, and imprisoned them, doing in this respect, however, no more than what he might lawfully do if they were of right his slaves at such times…
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.
Give students access to excerpts from the Dred Scott decision that represents two opposing views from the justices involved. Share with students that the ruling was favored by 7 of 9 judges.
Next, have students create a chart or use the provided Compare and Contrast chart to analyze the two opposing opinions issued at the time of the case. Students will be asked to assess and find the following in the documents:
An annotated Compare and Contrast chart has been provided for teacher review and to support scaffolding and discussion.
After students have filled out their charts, put students into groups of 3 or 4 to discuss their findings. While they listen to their peers, they can add any missing information to their own charts. Once they have reviewed their findings, ask groups to join a larger class discussion addressing the following questions.
Document 3.15.3: Excerpts from the Dred Scott Decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney of the United States Supreme Court, March 1857
Roger B. Taney, Dred Scott Decision, 1857, GLC 1259
Mr. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court…
In the opinion of the Court the 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 descendents, 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…
They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race…
No one, we presume, supposes that any change in public opinion or feeling, in relation to this unfortunate race, in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country should induce the Court to give to the words of the Constitution a more liberal construction in their favor than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted…
And upon a full and careful consideration of the subject, the Court is of the opinion that, upon the facts stated in the plea in abatement, Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States and not entitled as such to sue in its courts…
We proceed…to inquire whether the facts relied on by the plaintiff entitled him to his freedom…
The act of Congress, upon which the plaintiff relies, declares that slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall be forever prohibited in all that part of the territory ceded by France, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude and not included within the limits of Missouri. And the difficulty which meets us…is whether Congress was authorized to pass this law under any of the powers granted to it by the Constitution…
As there is no express regulation in the Constitution defining the power which the general government may exercise over the person or property of a citizen in a territory thus acquired, the Court must necessarily look to the provisions and principles of the Constitution, and its distribution of powers, for the rules and principles by which its decisions must be governed.
Taking this rule to guide us, it may be safely assumed that citizens of the United States who migrate to a territory…cannot be ruled as mere colonists, dependent upon the will of the general government, and to be governed by any laws it may think proper to impose…
For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a territory respecting the establishment of religion…or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press…
These powers, and others…are…denied to the general government; and the rights of private property have been guarded with equal care…
An act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, without due process of law, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular territory of the United States…could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.
The powers over person and property of which we speak are not only not granted to Congress but are in express terms denied and they are forbidden to exercise them…And if Congress itself cannot do this…it could not authorize a territorial government to exercise them…
It seems, however, to be supposed that there is a difference between property in a slave and other property…
Now…the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guaranteed to the citizens of the United States, in every state that might desire it, for twenty years. And the government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time if the slave escapes from his owner. This is done in plain words—too plain to be misunderstood. And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property or which entitles property of that kind to less protection that property of any other description…
Upon these considerations it is the opinion of the Court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned is not warranted by the Constitution and is therefore void; and that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made free by being carried into this territory; even if they had been carried there by the owner with the intention of becoming a permanent resident.Source: Davis,
David Brian and Steven Mintz. The Boisterous Sea of Liberty: A Documentary History of America from Discovery through the Civil War.
Document 3.15.4: Excerpt from dissenting opinion written by Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis of the United States Supreme Judicial Court, March 1857
Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis of Massachusetts protested Taney’s conclusions.
At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation [1781], all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those states, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchises of electors, on equal terms with other citizens. . . these colored persons were not only included in the body of ‘the people of the United States,’ by whom the Constitution was ordained and established, but in at least five of the States they had the power to act, and doubtless did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of adoption. . . .Curtis also argued that under a “reasonable interpretation of the language of the Constitution,” Congress had the power to regulate slavery in the federal territories.
Source: dissenting opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court Case Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sanford, March 6, 1857; Case Files 1792-1995; Record Group 267; Records of the Supreme Court of the United States; National Archives.
Explain to students that the Dred Scott case had a profound impact on the country’s politics. Newspapers wrote extensively about the case and its implications. In addition, the impending 1860 election caused Americans to wonder what the candidates’ position on the case was. Divide the class into groups and assign each group a document that discusses the political ramifications of the Dred Scott decision. Remind the class that in the mid-nineteenth century, most daily newspapers were openly affiliated with political parties. They made no pretense of separating factual reporting from editorial opinion, and thus they provide good evidence of divergent political viewpoints at the time.
Ask the group to answer the following questions:
Part 2 (30 mins): Re-number everyone in the 4 groups so that there are new groups with at least 1 member from every document represented in the new groups.
Ask each group member to describe their document and their findings. To keep the group members focused, ask students to record some notes on each document. You may use a chart like the one below to help students stay organized.
Once everyone has presented their document, ask the group to use their notes to answer the following questions:
All of the documents are about the Dred Scott decision, all are focused on the institution of slavery and race and how the case may impact the country, all are passionate about their opinion, and seem to want to convince the reader/listener that they are correct, they all point to the fact that the issue is causing tension and discord in the country
The authors are divided on what is right and wrong about the decision and the authors’ tones differ
The country was totally divided on the issue of slavery and Dred Scott’s case was a manifestation of those differences. It was a specific case that Americans could discuss clearly the facts of the case and debate the decision of the Supreme Court. The case pointed to the rising tensions that would eventually lead to the Civil War.
These amendments were written to prevent another case like Dred Scott’s by specifically stating that it would be unconstitutional to infringe on the rights of any citizen. It also explicitly states that, under these amendments, Dred Scott and his family are, in fact, citizens as they were all born in the United States. Race would not be able to determine the status of citizenship.
Document 3.15.7: Excerpts from the Pittsburgh Gazette, 7 March 1857
Is it [illegible] the threshold of the fierce struggle thrust before the people of this nation, we design, that there shall be no misunderstanding as to our position on the great point raised by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. We shall treat the so-called decision of that Court as an utter nullity. It is not law, and it has no binding force upon either the people or the government. It is not an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution, nor is it, legally, a decision entitled to any weight whatever. It is simply a demagogical stump speech from the hustings of the supreme bench, got up in legal phrase to suit the necessities of the Buchanan administration. The Judges of the Supreme Court have therein simply abandoned the robe and the ermine to achieve the task of framing a new platform for the locofoco party.
Look at the facts in the case. Dred Scott, an alleged Missouri slave, brings a suit against his claimant, for his freedom, upon the ground that his master, having voluntarily removed him from Missouri on to free soil, he thereby became free. The Supreme Court decide that Dred Scott is not a citizen of Missouri or of the United States, and therefore was not entitled to bring a suit in that Court; hence they dismiss his suit for want of jurisdiction. That, then, was the only point for them to decide, and that decided, there was an end of the case. The suit fell because the party bringing it had no rights in that Court.
Beyond this legal point the Court had no power to decide anything. They had no right to go into the merits of a case, when the case itself was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. All that follows is simply extra judicial and is entitled to be regarded only as the unauthorized opinion of so many individuals.
At the time when Chief Justice Marshall was on the bench, he gave it as the opinion of the Court, incidentally, that Congress had full and unlimited power over the Territories. This opinion was once cited in the Senate, to Gen. Cass, as authoritative and conclusive; but Gen. Cass replied that the opinion was an incidental one, foreign to the case at issue, and was a mere obiter dictum —an opinion, but not law. The Democratic party sustained Gen. Cass in this view, and from that day to this has refused to be bound by that decision of the Supreme Court. On the same ground we object to this decision. It is a mere opinion, delivered in a case in which the Court admitted it had no jurisdiction—a mere obiter dictum, devoid of all legal force or authority…
We cannot speak for the Republican party; but we feel free to say that it will spurn this decision and, when its day of triumph comes, and come it will, sweep into oblivion the base, reckless and unjust Judges who have prostituted their high offices to purposes so vile.
The Constitution was ordained to establish Justice and secure the blessings of Liberty to the people; and it will be worth one struggle, at least, to prevent it from being thus turned from its high aims to subserve the lusts of tyranny. The Constitution was made by the people and for the people; and to the people, the sovereign power in this confederacy, we appeal from this decision. They understand the charter of their liberties, we hope, full well enough to rebuke and defeat, at the polls, this effort to give the whole country up to the domination of the slave power.
Source: www.br-anch.org/survey/docs/pittsburgh.htm
Document 3.15.8: Excerpts from “The Question Settled,” New Hampshire Patriot, 18 March 1857
The Question Settled.—Black Republicanism vs. the Constitution.
Concord, New Hampshire, New Hampshire Patriot
We give in this paper an abstract of the decision of the U S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, in which it is solemnly adjudged and decided, by the highest judicial tribunal of the Union, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, and that Congress has no constitutional power or authority to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the Territories. It will be seen that other incidental questions were decided in this case, but this is the one of the most political importance, and interest. It utterly demolishes the whole black republican platform and stamps it as directly antagonistical to the constitution. This is the end of the matter, so far as argument and voting and legislation are concerned. The constitution is the supreme law; the Supreme Court is the authorized interpreter of the constitution; the construction which that tribunal puts upon that instrument is, for all practical purposes, the constitution itself, and therefore their decision must be fully and freely acquiesced in by all good citizens. That decision is now the supreme law of the land; it is practically the constitution itself, being the meaning and intent of that instrument as officially interpreted and declared by the tribunal authorized to interpret it, and from whose decision there is no appeal. Resistance to that decision is, therefore, resistance to the constitution—to the government—to the Union itself. It cannot be made legally , rightfully, peacefully, or with the least chance or hope of success. That decision must be carried into effect—that interpretation must be acquiesced in and acted upon, or else it must be resisted by force. There is no other alternative. It is the law, the constitution, and will be respected and acted upon by the constituted authorities, no matter to what party they belong nor what their private views may be in regard to it. It cannot be evaded; if Congress and the President should undertake to resist it, the effort would be futile. In a word, we repeat, nothing but force, open rebellion, can successfully oppose the practical application and enforcement of the decision of the court in this case.
But what is the course and talk of the black republican organs upon this subject? Why, one would suppose, from their talk, that the decision of the highest judicial tribunal of the Union is of no binding force! The N Y. Tribune even declares that their decision in this case is entitled to "no more weight than would be the judgment of a majority in a Washington bar-room," and other black papers declare the judges to be "scoundrels," and Benedict Arnolds, and the black press and pulpit unite in reviling the court and denouncing their decision!
Now this only goes prove, what we have heretofore alleged, that the black republican creed and purposes are at war with the constitution, are treasonable, and contemplate the overthrow of the Union. It only goes to show that their leaders stand precisely upon Garrison's platform, and that the road to the attainment of their objects lies over the ruins of the constitution and the Union. There is no escape from this; they preach resistance to law, to the supreme law—resistance to what is authoritatively adjudged to be the constitution. Such resistance, if carried into practical effect, would be treason; and all who preach it, preach treason, and all who seek to make a practical thing of it, seek to overthrow the constitution. This is the sum and substance of the matter; and all patriotic citizens—all who have a regard for the continued existence, peace and prosperity of the country, will [illegible] constitution, and to the government which is bound to respect and enforce it. . . .
Whoever now seeks to revive sectionalism, arrays himself against the constitution, and consequently, against the Union. Of course, it is to be expected that fanaticism will rave and clamor against the decision of the Supreme Court. But fanaticism ceases to be a formidable enemy when it seeks to measure strength with the Union-loving spirit of the people, sustained and confirmed by the great arbiter of constitutional questions. Fanaticism becomes powerless against such a combination, and hence we may smile at the madness with which the organs of black republicanism assail the late decision of the Supreme Court. It is the last dying fit of fanatical sectionalism. It will have the effect of fixing public attention upon the reckless wickedness which has heretofore impelled the sectional agitators to force the republic to the very verge of disruption.
We feel, therefore, that the danger is for the present over; that sectionalism is virtually dead—that it has been crushed out by the popular verdict in the presidential election; and that the decision of the Supreme Court had left nothing vital in republicanism, and has placed the Democratic party beyond and above all competition as the constitutional, national, Union party of the country. Mr. Buchanan takes the helm under these auspicious circumstances, and his acts thus far give token of a successful and prosperous administration.
Source: www.br-anch.org/survey/docs/question.htm
Ask students to view, without reading the corresponding text, the images of the Scott Family- Portraits from Frank Lesley’s Illustrated Newspaper
Tell students that the images are portraits of Dred and Harriet Scott and their two daughters, Eliza and Lizzie. Ask students to look closely at these images and respond to the following questions.
Next, explain to students that these portraits of the Scott family were taken when they were persuaded to have their “likeness” taken for publication in the paper. You can then read the full or excerpts of the full corresponding text, being mindful of racist language, ideas and stereotypical tropes used.
After reading ask students:
Document 3.15.2: Excerpts from text accompanying illustration from Frank Lesley’s Illustrated Newspaper, June 27, 1857
VISIT TO DRED SCOTT—HIS FAMILY—INCIDENTS OF HIS LIFE—DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.
While standing in the Fair grounds at St. Louis, and engaged in conversation with a prominent citizen of that enterprising city, he suddenly asked us if we would not like to be introduced to Dred Scott. Upon expressing a desire to be thus honored, the gentleman called to an old Negro who was standing near by, and our wish was gratified. Dred made a rude obeisance to our recognition, and seemed to enjoy the notice we expended upon him. We found him on examination to be a pure-blooded African, perhaps fifty years of age with a shrewd, intelligent, good-natured face, of rather light frame, being not more than five feet six inches high. After some general remarks we expressed a wish to get his portrait (we had made efforts before, through correspondents, and failed), and asked him if he would not go to Fitzgibbon’s gallery and have it taken. The gentleman present explained to Dred that it was proper he should have his likeness in the “great illustrated paper of the country,” overruled his many objections, which seemed to grow out of a superstitious feeling, and he promised to be at the gallery the next day. This appointment Dred Scott did not keep. Determined not to be foiled, we sought an interview with Mr. Crane, Dred’s lawyer, who promptly gave us a letter of introduction, explaining to Dred that it was to his advantage to have his picture taken to be engraved for our paper, and also directions where we could find his domicile. We found the place with difficulty, the streets in Dred’s neighborhood being more clearly defined in the plan of the city than on the mother earth; we finally reached a wooden house, however, protected by a balcony that answered the description. Approaching the door, we saw a smart, tidy-looking negress, perhaps thirty years of age, who, with two female assistants, was busy ironing. To our question, “ Is this where Dred Scott lives?’ we received, rather hesitatingly, the answer, “yes.” Upon our asking if he was home, she said, “What white man arter dad nigger for?—why don’t white man tend to his own business, and let dat nigger ‘lone? Some of dese days dey’ll steal dat nigger—dat are a fact.”. . .
Source: Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper. New York, Saturday, June 27, 1857. From the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.
Display or distribute to each student a copy of Abraham Lincoln’s notes made for preparing his acceptance speech for the Republican Party’s nomination for President of the United States in 1858. As a whole class discuss the following questions:
Document 3.15.5: Excerpt from notes Abraham Lincoln wrote in 1858 in advance of his “house divided” speech
Why Kansas is neither the whole, nor the tithe of the real question.
“A house divided cannot stand.”
I believe this government can not endure permanently half slave, and half free.
I expressed this belief a year ago; and subsequent developments have but confirmed me.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved. I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and put it in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old, as well as new. Do you doubt it? Study the Dred Scott decision, and then see, how little, even now, remains to be done.
From: “The Boisterous Sea of Liberty: A Documentary History of America from Discovery Through the Civil War” written and edited by David Brian Davis & Steven Mintz
Read or revisit Abraham Lincoln’s notes made for preparing his acceptance speech for the Republican Party’s nomination for President of the United States in 1858. Then look at the image titled “The Political Quadrille. Music by Dred Scott”. This cartoon is a parody of the 1860 presidential election, highlighting the impact of the Dred Scott decision on national politics. Research this image further (a recommended source would be the Library of Congress) and using your insights and understandings write a reflective essay addressing the following questions and referencing sources that have been used in this unit as well as through your own research. Your essay should include a response to the following questions:
Document 3.15.5: Excerpt from notes Abraham Lincoln wrote in 1858 in advance of his “house divided” speech
Why Kansas is neither the whole, nor the tithe of the real question.
“A house divided cannot stand.”
I believe this government can not endure permanently half slave, and half free.
I expressed this belief a year ago; and subsequent developments have but confirmed me.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved. I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and put it in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old, as well as new. Do you doubt it? Study the Dred Scott decision, and then see, how little, even now, remains to be done.
From: “The Boisterous Sea of Liberty: A Documentary History of America from Discovery Through the Civil War” written and edited by David Brian Davis & Steven Mintz
Dred Scott v. Sandford is widely considered one of the most influential cases of judicial review in the history of the United States. It stands as one of many court cases that caused Americans to consider the role and status of African Americans within American society. There are numerous other cases that have called into question the rights of African Americans. In this culminating activity, students are asked to investigate another case involving the rights of African Americans and consider the legacy of Dred Scott v. Sandford within the case and ruling.
For this final task, students can choose how to present their information. Options may include a presentation, poster, essay or oral presentation.
All finished products should include the following information:
The final product should address:
Consider the following cases to assign or allow students to choose from.:
Please login or sign up to access the student view functions.
