First Close Reading
Dred Scott Decision (1857)
By: Charlotte Goodman
Introduction:
“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.”[1] This is what Roger B. Taney declared about African Americans when he delivered the majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford on March 6, 1857. Beginning in St. Louis Circuit Court in 1846, plaintiffs Dred and Harriet Robinson Scott filed separate freedom suits arguing that their southern enslaver had held them illegally as slaves in free territory. However, this 11-year legal journey ended in a ruling against them, and one that erupted in a political firestorm as it essentially declared that African Americans could not be considered citizens of the United States, even if they had once been free. This text presents excerpts from Chief Justice Roger Taney’s majority opinion and Associate Justice John McLean’s dissenting opinion which emphasize contrasting interpretations of the American past. The Scotts’ intuitive understanding of natural rights influenced competing arguments by Taney and McLean and escalated sectional tensions over slavery.
“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.”[1] This is what Roger B. Taney declared about African Americans when he delivered the majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford on March 6, 1857. Beginning in St. Louis Circuit Court in 1846, plaintiffs Dred and Harriet Robinson Scott filed separate freedom suits arguing that their southern enslaver had held them illegally as slaves in free territory. However, this 11-year legal journey ended in a ruling against them, and one that erupted in a political firestorm as it essentially declared that African Americans could not be considered citizens of the United States, even if they had once been free. This text presents excerpts from Chief Justice Roger Taney’s majority opinion and Associate Justice John McLean’s dissenting opinion which emphasize contrasting interpretations of the American past. The Scotts’ intuitive understanding of natural rights influenced competing arguments by Taney and McLean and escalated sectional tensions over slavery.
Text: Competing Interpretations
In Taney’s majority opinion, he argued that he sought to maintain the tradition of denying African Americans natural rights. He used documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution to show that African Americans never were considered citizens neither by the framers nor by England. Specifically, he stated it is evident in the nation’s history and the Declaration that enslaved individuals and their descendants, “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.”[2] Essentially, Taney believed in the principles that the founding documents established such as natural rights, but he believed those principles only applied to white people and never to African Americans.
In McLean’s dissenting opinion, he pushed back against Taney’s argument because he believed it emphasized his personal preference rather than the nation's true traditions. In fact, McLean employed specific instances of equality in the country’s history such as the recognition of previous African American citizenship. He stated, “Several of the States have admitted persons of color to the right of suffrage, and in this view have recognised them as citizens,” and he emphasized how this had been done in both slave and free states. He also cited specific examples in American history that contradicted Taney’s argument about the exclusion of African Americans from citizenship, and in this way McLean countered what he considered to be Taney’s constructed tradition of racial hierarchy in the nation.[3]
In Taney’s majority opinion, he argued that he sought to maintain the tradition of denying African Americans natural rights. He used documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution to show that African Americans never were considered citizens neither by the framers nor by England. Specifically, he stated it is evident in the nation’s history and the Declaration that enslaved individuals and their descendants, “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.”[2] Essentially, Taney believed in the principles that the founding documents established such as natural rights, but he believed those principles only applied to white people and never to African Americans.
In McLean’s dissenting opinion, he pushed back against Taney’s argument because he believed it emphasized his personal preference rather than the nation's true traditions. In fact, McLean employed specific instances of equality in the country’s history such as the recognition of previous African American citizenship. He stated, “Several of the States have admitted persons of color to the right of suffrage, and in this view have recognised them as citizens,” and he emphasized how this had been done in both slave and free states. He also cited specific examples in American history that contradicted Taney’s argument about the exclusion of African Americans from citizenship, and in this way McLean countered what he considered to be Taney’s constructed tradition of racial hierarchy in the nation.[3]
Context: A Nation Divided
The basis of Dred and Harriet Scott’s freedom suits was a legal precedent set by Winny v. Whitesides, a freedom suit filed in 1818 in which an enslaved woman named Winny, won her freedom in the Supreme Court of Missouri after she was taken into free territory.[4] The case established the “once free, always free” doctrine. Because the Scotts were taken into Wisconsin territory where slavery was prohibited by the Missouri Compromise, the Scotts believed they too, were rightfully free.[5]
During the time of Scott v. Sandford, slavery was expanding and fugitive slave laws were causing bitter contention between both free and slave states who were no longer willing to compromise.[6] However, in the 1850s, northern free states were increasing in power and antislavery northerners had control over legislation in those states. Antislavery politicians in the north were advocating for more aggressive personal liberty laws as a means to promote their antislavery worldview through policy. This worried pro-slavery policymakers who tried to launch counterattacks through federal legislation. Specifically, Northern democrats such as Stephen Douglas enacted the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 which left the choice of whether to permit slavery in those territories up to its citizens. This controversial legislative document repealed the Missouri Compromise and established the principle of popular sovereignty.
The basis of Dred and Harriet Scott’s freedom suits was a legal precedent set by Winny v. Whitesides, a freedom suit filed in 1818 in which an enslaved woman named Winny, won her freedom in the Supreme Court of Missouri after she was taken into free territory.[4] The case established the “once free, always free” doctrine. Because the Scotts were taken into Wisconsin territory where slavery was prohibited by the Missouri Compromise, the Scotts believed they too, were rightfully free.[5]
During the time of Scott v. Sandford, slavery was expanding and fugitive slave laws were causing bitter contention between both free and slave states who were no longer willing to compromise.[6] However, in the 1850s, northern free states were increasing in power and antislavery northerners had control over legislation in those states. Antislavery politicians in the north were advocating for more aggressive personal liberty laws as a means to promote their antislavery worldview through policy. This worried pro-slavery policymakers who tried to launch counterattacks through federal legislation. Specifically, Northern democrats such as Stephen Douglas enacted the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 which left the choice of whether to permit slavery in those territories up to its citizens. This controversial legislative document repealed the Missouri Compromise and established the principle of popular sovereignty.
Subtext: The Politics of the Law
As a response to what he perceived as the rising antislavery sentiment in the North, Taney tried to use his Supreme Court opinion in 1857 to uphold the nation's original compromises over slavery. The irony was that Taney and other pro-slavery figures seemed determined to use federal power to protect slavery against Northern states' rights. It is evident that McLean was trying to expose Taney’s intentions in his dissenting opinion. McLean argued that Taney’s opinion was “more a matter of taste than law,” to highlight how Taney, a Supreme Court Justice who should have been using legal precedent to inform his opinion, instead strategically based his argument on his own personal preference and those of proslavery southerners in order to control policy on natural rights, which was directly connected to the issue of slavery.[7]
Though Dred and Harriet Scott’s only formally recognized contribution to the case was the signing of their marks, this case exemplifies their agency as their ideas were able to provoke a politically charged debate about natural rights that eventually had to be decided in the highest court in the land. Though the Scotts did not actually write the documents, their assertions that they too, should be granted natural rights can be seen all over the case. For example, McLean observed that in newly admitted states such as Louisiana and Florida, African Americans had been automatically acknowledged as citizens “without being naturalized under the acts of Congress.”[8] African Americans such as the Scotts had been arguing that they were birthright citizens and did not need to undergo the naturalization process, whereas many white lawmakers rejected this assertion. In his argument, McLean was essentially responding to and agreeing with the Scotts as he suggested that the naturalization process was not required for Dred Scott to be considered free.
The Dred Scott decision revealed how questions about natural rights were at the center of the nation’s conflict over slavery. Roger Taney and John McLean, two of the nation’s most well-educated, differed in their interpretations of natural rights in the American past. Dred and Harriet Scott, who did not receive any formal education, developed their own interpretations of natural rights and used them to form the basis of their legal argument. It was this argument that eventually engaged the nation. Examining all of the perspectives on this case raises questions about the extent to which a person’s worldview may influence their understanding of natural rights, and concerns about politically motivated decisions at the federal level. These concerns were exemplified by the outrage the decision sparked among Republicans such as Abraham Lincoln, who viewed the decision as regression as it foreclosed their interpretations that natural rights should be granted to African Americans, too. Clearly, the concept of natural rights is vital to a democracy that strives to live up to its ideals. The decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford illustrates how majorities should not always have the power to rule on these critical matters, especially when the nation is bitterly divided.
As a response to what he perceived as the rising antislavery sentiment in the North, Taney tried to use his Supreme Court opinion in 1857 to uphold the nation's original compromises over slavery. The irony was that Taney and other pro-slavery figures seemed determined to use federal power to protect slavery against Northern states' rights. It is evident that McLean was trying to expose Taney’s intentions in his dissenting opinion. McLean argued that Taney’s opinion was “more a matter of taste than law,” to highlight how Taney, a Supreme Court Justice who should have been using legal precedent to inform his opinion, instead strategically based his argument on his own personal preference and those of proslavery southerners in order to control policy on natural rights, which was directly connected to the issue of slavery.[7]
Though Dred and Harriet Scott’s only formally recognized contribution to the case was the signing of their marks, this case exemplifies their agency as their ideas were able to provoke a politically charged debate about natural rights that eventually had to be decided in the highest court in the land. Though the Scotts did not actually write the documents, their assertions that they too, should be granted natural rights can be seen all over the case. For example, McLean observed that in newly admitted states such as Louisiana and Florida, African Americans had been automatically acknowledged as citizens “without being naturalized under the acts of Congress.”[8] African Americans such as the Scotts had been arguing that they were birthright citizens and did not need to undergo the naturalization process, whereas many white lawmakers rejected this assertion. In his argument, McLean was essentially responding to and agreeing with the Scotts as he suggested that the naturalization process was not required for Dred Scott to be considered free.
The Dred Scott decision revealed how questions about natural rights were at the center of the nation’s conflict over slavery. Roger Taney and John McLean, two of the nation’s most well-educated, differed in their interpretations of natural rights in the American past. Dred and Harriet Scott, who did not receive any formal education, developed their own interpretations of natural rights and used them to form the basis of their legal argument. It was this argument that eventually engaged the nation. Examining all of the perspectives on this case raises questions about the extent to which a person’s worldview may influence their understanding of natural rights, and concerns about politically motivated decisions at the federal level. These concerns were exemplified by the outrage the decision sparked among Republicans such as Abraham Lincoln, who viewed the decision as regression as it foreclosed their interpretations that natural rights should be granted to African Americans, too. Clearly, the concept of natural rights is vital to a democracy that strives to live up to its ideals. The decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford illustrates how majorities should not always have the power to rule on these critical matters, especially when the nation is bitterly divided.
[1] Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), National Archives, May 10, 2022, [WEB].
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] “History of Freedom Suits in Missouri,” St. Louis Circuit Court Historical Records Project, Sept. 12, 2018.
[5] "Dred Scott Case And Its Bitter Legacy," Gilder Lehrman Institute, Google Arts, 2008, [WEB].
[6] Ibid.
[7] Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857).
[8] Ibid.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] “History of Freedom Suits in Missouri,” St. Louis Circuit Court Historical Records Project, Sept. 12, 2018.
[5] "Dred Scott Case And Its Bitter Legacy," Gilder Lehrman Institute, Google Arts, 2008, [WEB].
[6] Ibid.
[7] Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857).
[8] Ibid.