Facts—In 1834, Dr. Emerson, a surgeon in the U.S. Army, took Dred Scott, a black slave, to Rock Island, Illinois, where slavery was prohibited by statute. In 1836, Emerson took Scott to Fort Snelling, in the territory of Louisiana, which was north of the line of (36°30′), and consequently an area in which the Missouri Compromise had forbidden slavery. In 1838, Scott was brought back to Missouri, and in 1847 he brought suit in the Missouri Circuit Court to recover his freedom, basing his action on previous decisions that residence in free territory conferred freedom. Before the commencement of this suit, Scott was sold to Sanford, incorrectly spelled Sandford, a citizen of New York, thus giving the Court jurisdiction under its diversity of citizenship requirements.

Questions—(a) Can a black slave become a rights-bearing member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States? (b) Was the Missouri Compromise constitutional?

Decisions—(a) No; (b) No.

Reasons—C.J. Taney (7–2). Blacks were neither included nor intended to be included under the word “citizen” in the Constitution, and therefore could claim none of the rights and privileges secured to citizens of the United States.

A state could bestow the right of state citizenship upon any person it thought proper. However, no state could by its own laws make a person a member of the United States by making him a member in its own territory. Nor could a state clothe an individual with the rights and privileges of the United States, or of any other state.

The history of our country and the language of the Declaration of Independence, as well as the legislation of the colonies, point to the fact that blacks had no rights that the white man was bound to respect, and that he might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery. The Constitution shows that public opinion had undergone no change, and pledged the states to maintain the property of the master by returning any escaped slaves.

The next question involved asked whether Scott, together with his family, was free in Missouri by reason of the stay in the territory of the United States? The plaintiff here relied on the act of Congress prohibiting involuntary servitude north of Missouri (36°30′). The difficulty here was whether Congress was authorized to pass such a law, according to the Constitution.

The power of Congress over the person or property of an individual can never be a mere discretionary power, but must be regulated by the Constitution. Rights of property are identified with the rights of a person who may not be deprived of them without due process of law. An act of Congress that deprives a man of his property because he came into a particular territory can hardly be called the process of law. Therefore the Court held that the act of Congress (the Missouri Compromise) that prohibited a citizen from holding slave property of this kind north of the line mentioned was not warranted in the Constitution and was therefore void. Dred Scott and his family were not free by reason of being taken there.

The plaintiff also contended that he was free by reason of being taken to the state of Illinois, and that, being free, he was not again reduced to a state of slavery when brought back to Missouri. Strader v. Graham established that the status of the slaves depended on the law of the state of residence. Therefore, Scott’s status, free or slave, depended on the law of Missouri, not of Illinois.

In the light of these considerations, the plaintiff was not a citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and the courts had no jurisdiction in this case.

All nine justices wrote opinions in Scott. J. McLean and J. Curtis authored dissents claiming that blacks had been citizens when the United States was formed and that the national government had power to regulate slavery within the territories.

Note—Scott marked only the second time in United States history—the first occurred in Marbury v. Madison (1803)—that the Supreme Court invalidated an act passed by Congress on the basis that it was unconstitutional. Dred Scott inflamed attitudes on slavery rather than assuaged them, and was reversed by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”