On the anniversary of the Dred Scott decision, look at Missouri’s role in injustice

The Dred Scott case, decided March 6, 1857, was an unnecessary tragedy. It violated every notion of human decency, twisting law and logic to deny Scott his freedom and to protect slaveholders. It’s arguably the most dreadful Supreme Court decision ever.

Instead of following law or morality, the court acted out of expediency, saying Dred Scott was not a citizen. He was property. The most charitable view of this case is that the majority thought its opinion might help preserve the Union by mollifying slaveholding states. But many historians say the controversy it created contributed to civil war. 

The Supreme Court’s rendition of the facts starts in 1834. Scott belonged to a U.S. Army surgeon, who took him from Missouri to a military post in Rock Island, Illinois. Two years later, the doctor brought Scott to Fort Snelling, a military base on the Mississippi River in territory north of Missouri. There, the doctor bought another slave named Harriet. He consented to her marrying Dred, and the couple had a daughter, Eliza, born on a steamboat. Two years later, the doctor took the three to Missouri. A second daughter, Lizzie, was born at the Jefferson Barracks military post in St. Louis.

According to the court’s account, the doctor sold the Scotts to John Sandford, who imprisoned and “assaulted” them.

Dred Scott wanted to sue Sandford for the assaults. Sandford said he “gently laid his hands upon” and “had only restrained” them, and he “had a right to do so.” Why? Because they were his slaves. 

But that was the question: Was Scott still a slave? The doctor took him from Missouri, a slave state, to Illinois, a free state, to northern territory, which was also free, and then back to Missouri. Had Scott gained freedom because of the time spent in Illinois and free territory? The bulk of case law said yes. 

Scott first tried using the Missouri court system. In 1850, a St. Louis jury agreed that Scott should be free. But in 1852, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned Scott’s win, 2 to 1. He came so close. 

Missouri’s Supreme Court opined that “When the condition of our slaves is contrasted with the state of their miserable race in Africa, … we are almost persuaded that the introduction of slavery amongst us was, in the providences of God, who makes the evil passions of men subservient to his own glory, a means of placing that unhappy race within the pale of civilized nations.” And that’s the glorious way the opinion ended. 

But Scott’s legal journey hadn’t ended. Two years later, he sued in federal court in St. Louis. This time, the jury decided in Sandford’s favor, finding that “Dred Scott was a negro slave, the lawful property of the defendant.”

The U.S. Supreme Court was Scott’s last chance. Talk about a long shot: Of nine justices, five came from slaveholding families. On the positive side, one of the two attorneys representing Scott was the brother of Justice Benjamin Curtis, who dissented. Still, Scott lost, 7 to 2. 

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, a devout Roman Catholic who had freed slaves he inherited, penned this awful opinion. 

The court concluded Scott had no right to sue because he wasn’t a citizen: People whose ancestors were slaves “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. … On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings.” 

Subordinate. Inferior. But what about the Declaration of Independence, 1776? The court quoted its beautiful language: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The Supreme Court audaciously remarked: “The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family. … But it is too clear for dispute that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included.” Why clear? Because if “all men” included slaves, then “the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted.” Inconsistent because many owned slaves.

The court continued, “Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men … high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting.” Yes, it was perfectly acceptable for these distinguished men to be slaveholders, but heaven forbid that their actions be inconsistent with their words.

The court makes its sentiments clear: “The unhappy Black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, … and were never thought of or spoken of except as property.”

Eighteen months after the Supreme Court’s decision, on Sept. 17, 1858, Dred Scott died. He was 59 years old.

Attorney Sandy Davidson was a Curators’ Distinguished Teaching Professor at the University of Missouri in Columbia. She retired in 2019 after more than 30 years of teaching. She taught media law at the Schools of Journalism and Law.