Dred Scott v. Sandford | The Civil War era (1844-1877) | US history | Khan Academy

Dred Scott v. Sandford | The Civil War era (1844-1877) | US history | Khan Academy

– [Narrator] Hi this is
Kim from Khan Academy. Today we’re learning
more about the landmark Supreme Court case Dred
Scott versus Sandford. Decided in 1857, the ruling
in the Dred Scott case inflamed sectional tensions over slavery, which had been growing ever more heated over the course of the 1850s. Originally a case about whether
one man ought to be free, Dred Scott versus Sandford
transformed into a case about African-American citizenship and the future of the
institution of slavery itself. To learn more, I sought
out help of two experts. Christopher Bracey is a Professor of Law at the George Washington
University School of Law. He’s an expert in US race
relations, individual rights and criminal procedure. Timothy Huebner is the Irma O. Sternberg Professor of History at Rhodes College and the author of Liberty
and Union: The Civil War Era and American Constitutionalism. Professor Bracey can you
take us through a little bit, just who was Dred Scott and
why did he bring this case? – [Christopher] So Dred
Scott was born around 1800 and was the slave of Peter
and Elizabeth Taylor Blow. In 1818, Peter Blow
decides to move his family and Dred Scott to Alabama where he’d bought a cotton plantation. That didn’t go so well, so he sells the plantation
and moves the family and Dred to St. Louis, Missouri, where he’d purchased a
boarding house called The Jefferson Hotel. – [Timothy] And that
period really was a period during which the nation was arguing over the status of slaves and
the rights of slaveholders and the future of slavery
in new western territories. And this issue came up
in a very significant way and a very controversial
way in the question of the future of slavery in the territory and ultimately the state of Missouri. After two years of arguing over this, finally in 1820 and 1821,
a sort of compromise was set out by members of Congress. North of the southern border of Missouri, with the exception of
the state of Missouri, slavery would be banned. – [Christopher] In 1830,
Elizabeth Taylor Blow dies and Peter himself dies two years later. But before he does, he
makes an arrangement to sell Dred to an Army physician
by the name of Dr. Emerson. Dr. Emerson is an Army
physician, so he’s gonna be stationed in a lot of different places, not just in the slave state of Missouri. In fact, it turns out that
Dr. Emerson’s first posting with Dred takes him to Fort Armstrong, which is located in Rock Island, Illinois and Illinois is of course a free state. Under both federal law and Missouri law as understood at the
time, Dred would have lost his slave status and become a free man as soon as he stepped
foot onto free territory. This was known as the Extra-territorial Emancipation Doctrine. – [Timothy] It was perfectly
legal and perfectly possible for a slave sojourner, a
slave who had been taken into a free state or free territory, to file suit for his freedom. – [Christopher] Dr. Emerson marries Eliza Irene Sandford of St. Louis. Dr. Emerson eventually
dies in 1843 and he leaves the entire estate, including
the Scotts, to Mrs. Emerson. Mrs. Emerson decides she
would like to hire Dred out to make some money for herself. Rather than be hired out,
Dred offers to purchase his own freedom, and the
freedom of his entire family. But Mrs. Emerson refuses
to allow Dred to buy out the freedom of his family. So Dred Scott files a civil lawsuit, what was called a Freedom Suit back then, in the Missouri State court. And his claim was that
Mrs. Emerson was falsely imprisoning him and his family. – [Timothy] And he was able
to do this with the help of the sons of his formers owners. – [Christopher] The lawyer
is being paid by the children of Peter and Elizabeth Taylor Blow, – [Narrator] Wow.
Dred Scott’s first master. In the meantime you
have a new development, Mrs. Emerson has remarried to Republican congressman Calvin
Chaffee, from Massachusetts and he can’t be a slave owner and still be a Republican congressman
from Massachusetts. So Mrs. Emerson transfers
title of the Scotts to her brother John
Sandford who is a resident of New York, with business
ties in St. Louis. – [Timothy] Now it was
eligible for the case to go into Federal Court
in that it involved people who lived in two different states. – [Christopher] So now
you might be thinking, “Well, filing a lawsuit
against your purported master, that’s pretty brave stuff.” But as it turns out freedoms
suits of this nature were not that uncommon,
particularly in border states where the slavery question
was hotly disputed. Indeed there were some 300
or so of these freedom suits that were filed in
Missouri during the period in which Dred Scott filed his case. Many people viewed the Missouri
Compromise as not so much of a compromise but as
something that was forced upon the slave states. And then you’ve got
the Kansas-Nebraska Act which gave similar autonomy
to those areas to decide the slavery question and
whether or not it would be introduced into those territories. – [Narrator] Interesting,
so people in the North who opposed slavery or at the very least didn’t want slavery to expand,
would have been looking in the 1850s and saying,
“Hey I thought we already decided this, there wouldn’t
be slavery north of this line and now you’re saying
maybe Kansas and Nebraska could be slave states.” – [Timothy] Right and
that was a huge issue in national politics because
northerners are starting to grow very suspicious of
southerners on the slavery issue. They’re starting to
speak of what they called the slave power, that southern slaveholders
held all of this power in Washington and that
they were running the show. And that this 1854 act
had made it possible for slavery to potentially
expand into an area where previously it had been banned. – [Christopher] And you
really do get this escalation of tension and the
Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 which basically forced
requirements upon free states to ensure the longevity
of the slave states by requiring them to
undertake certain behaviors and the return of fugitive
slaves only escalated the tension and concern
about the status of slavery in American life. – [Narrator] Alright so we’re
in this incredibly tense time of the 1850s with the slavery
question yet unanswered and Dred Scott and his case
gets to the Supreme Court. So how does the Supreme
Court rule on this? – [Christopher] In a seven to two ruling, the Supreme Court held that
Dred Scott was not a citizen of the United States, and so therefore he could not bring his freedom
suit before federal court, which is really a jurisdictional question. But then the Court also
goes on to invalidate the Missouri Compromise, despite finding that it lacked jurisdiction
to hear the case. – [Timothy] What happens
when the case is being argued is that one of the
arguments that’s introduced is this idea that when
Scott had been taken into free territory, he
wasn’t necessarily free because the Missouri Compromise
was unconstitutional. And so what the Court
ends up doing is not only ruling on the status of Scott, but also on the status of slavery in
these federal territories in the west and the extent
of the powers of Congress over slavery in the west. – [Narrator] Interesting so
Chief Justice Roger Taney is then leading the Supreme
Court and he, I guess, leads the reasoning about this case. So what were some of the arguments that he eventually accepted and
made in his decision? – [Timothy] Chief Justice Taney’s
a very interesting figure. He had been on the court for many years. He, in his early years, had
been moderately anti-slavery, had freed most of his
own slaves, and had made anti-slavery statements. But by 1857 Taney
reflected the larger change that had taken place
within his political party, Taney was a Democrat. And the Democratic party
had become more Southern dominated and more pro-slavery. And Taney then, by
1857, really is a symbol of pro-slavery Southern thought. – [Christopher] Justice Taney’s opinion is somewhat notorious. He makes a series of arguments and one is legal, the others are
really not legal arguments as I’ll explain. What he starts out by
saying is that just because you’re a citizen of a state,
that does not make you a citizen of the United States. He says basically the federal government has exclusive authority
to decide who is a citizen of the United States. Then he makes a second
argument and he says even if Dred Scott were a
citizen of the state of Missouri he would not be a citizen
of the United States because he’s black. And what he meant by that
is that the word citizen as used in the Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence categorically excluded members of the Negro race. – [Narrator] This is fascinating
because it seems to me like Justice Taney may have
been ignoring a long history of free people of color
in the United States who had voting rights,
who had property rights. – [Timothy] He was and that
was part of the criticism of the majority opinion that comes in, especially the dissent written
by Justice Benjamin Curtis. Curtis had the lengthier
of the two dissents and the more thorough legal argument because, as you point
out, that in five states at the time of the founding,
that African-Americans did exercise the right to vote that was a sign or some
sort of an indication of their status as citizens. And so the argument made
by Justice Curtis then, is that Taney’s reading of
history was that the founders had not intended for
African-Americans to be part of the people or the citizens
that were referred to in the text of the US Constitution. – [Christopher] What
Justice Taney has done here has basically created a
blind spot for himself and he goes on to point out
that this is not his belief, this belief in Negro inferiority,
but he said that it was a fixed and universal belief
within the civilized portion of the white race, he said
it was an axiom, a truth. But what’s interesting
is that he says this without a citation. He says that these aren’t his
views, these are the views of the framers, the
great men who were high in literary accomplishment,
high in their sense of honor. He said that they perfectly
understood the language that they used, and how it
would be understood by others. And there’s this great
quote in the opinion where he says that they,
the framers, knew that it would not in any part
of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the Negro race, which by common consent had been excluded from civilized governments
and the family of nations and doomed to slavery. What Justice Taney has done here, is he’s attempted to rewrite history. – [Narrator] So how the
American people respond to the Dred Scott decision at large? Where they generally
for it, or aghast by it? – [Timothy] Well as you might expect, things were split exactly down the middle. What we see in the South
is white Southerners believe that the ruling is a vindication of what they had been arguing. Southerners had been
arguing for many years going back to John C.
Calhoun, that Southerners and that Southern slave
holders had a bundle of rights. And they argued that they
had the right to own slaves as property in the southern states. They argued that they
had a right to recapture fugitive slaves who escaped into the north and they also argued that they had a right to take slaves into the west. And so Southerners then
feel that the Court and the US Constitution are on their side. You see a lot of folks in
the north who are hostile to what the Court has done,
because once again they see it as further evidence that the Court is dominated by the Democratic
party, by the slave power. And many of these folks
then are going to be members of a new party,
and that was of course the Republican Party. – [Christopher] I think the
abolitionists were furious and I think Frederick
Douglas’ statement calling it a brazen misstatement of facts of history, a scandalous and devilish
perversion of the Constitution resonated and even future
Presidential candidate Abraham Lincoln, that same
summer that the case was decided, went out and denounced it publicly. – [Narrator] So Lincoln of
course wins the election of November 1860 which becomes a precipitating event of the Civil War. Do you see the Dred Scott
decision as being a really important cause of the Civil War? – [Timothy] Yeah so these things
are all linked, absolutely. Think about the ruling by
Taney in Dred Scott ruling that slave-holders rights are absolute. Taney rules African-Americans
have no rights, slaveholders have total rights. This makes it possible for Lincoln to rise as a political leader in the north because he has something that he
can strongly criticize. Lincoln basically makes the
argument that the founders had hoped for slavery
to disappear ultimately. And Taney’s making exactly
the opposite argument. So the interesting thing
is, if you think about how this story ends, it
ends in March of 1861 when Abraham Lincoln is
sworn-in as the 16th President. And who swears him in? Of course Roger B. Taney. So between the time
when Lincoln was elected in November of 1860 and
the time when he takes that oath of office in March of 1861, seven Southern slave-holding states, those are the states that
leave the Federal Union first. Four other states of
course will join them, but not until after the Civil
War has already started. – [Narrator] So there’s
no Compromise of 1860, instead what we get is a
four-year long Civil War where more than 620,000
Americans are killed. And at the end of that war,
the North, the United States is victorious and slavery
in the 13th Amendment is abolished forever. How does the end of the
Civil War relate back to the Dred Scott case? – [Timothy] The 13th
Amendment ends slavery, the 14th Amendment has
to undermine or overturn the other part of the
Supreme Court’s ruling which was this issue
of the rights of those who previously had been held as slaves. And the 14th Amendment
is going to do that work by stating that all who
were born in this country, by virtue of their birth here are citizens and that they have rights
that will be protected by the Federal government. And if you think about
it, what has changed, what has shifted, is the whole
national discourse of rights, from the emphasis on the
rights of slaveholders that we see in 1857, to
an emphasis on the rights of those who previously
had been held as slaves. And arguably then what we
see during the Civil War and Reconstruction is the
advent of a new discourse focusing on human rights. And that I would argue is
profoundly significant. – [Narrator] So what happened
to Dred Scott after this? Did he and his wife live to see the end of the Civil War and the end of slavery? – [Christopher] Unfortunately
Dred Scott did not. The Supreme Court renders
its decision in 1857 but he dies, unfortunately in 1858. His wife Harriet though,
lives on to about 1876. So she did live to see
the end of the Civil War and the end of slavery. The Dred Scott case
made clear, at the time, that the struggle for
citizenship and of course the later struggle for civil rights, is about the desire to be
treated with equal dignity, to be viewed as possessing equal humanity. And what is perhaps most moving, I think, about the Dred Scott case
is the dignity with which the Scotts carried themselves
throughout the entire ordeal, despite the Court’s best
efforts to deprive them of that dignity. It was ultimately Dred and
Harriet who gained the respect of the nation. And it was the inhumanity of the Court and the institution of
slavery that was laid bare for all to see. – [Narrator] So we’ve learned
that the ruling in Dred Scott helped bring about the Civil
War by further dividing the North and South over
the issue of slavery. Opposition to the case’s outcome propelled Abraham Lincoln to the
national political stage and opposition to Abraham
Lincoln propelled slave states to secede after his election as President. But the Dred Scott case was
also about the lives and fates of one man and his family. Although Dred didn’t survive
to see the end of slavery and the passage of the 14th Amendment granting equal citizenship
to African-Americans, his family lived to see the rewards of the struggle he began. To learn more about the Dred Scott case, visit the National Constitution Center’s interactive Constitution
and Khan Academy’s resources on US history.


  1. Post
  2. Post
  3. Post
  4. Post
  5. Post
  6. Post

    hey sal, i love your videos man and i wanted to ask you if you can make an intuition video about polynomial long division. really love your stuff man keep it up

  7. Post
  8. Post
  9. Post
  10. Post
    Anthony Wright

    African-American is a misnomer for Paleo-American Aborigine Moors/Muurs (whom were landlords of the land and weren't supposed citizens which is why they were excluded); the same people whom are apart of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship. Renaming said people were to denationalize them to take away their landlord status over the Europeans.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *