{"id":3654,"date":"2021-11-11T13:57:49","date_gmt":"2021-11-11T13:57:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/hist-117pinsker\/?page_id=3654"},"modified":"2022-11-08T01:24:12","modified_gmt":"2022-11-08T01:24:12","slug":"dred-and-harriet-scott","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/hist-117pinsker\/course-syllabus\/dred-and-harriet-scott\/","title":{"rendered":"Dred and Harriet Scott"},"content":{"rendered":"

Image Gateway \u2013The Scott Family and Dickinson<\/strong><\/h2>\n

\"Scott<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"Leslies<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Dred<\/a>

Dred Scott in 1857, age about 57, one year before his death<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Teaching the Dred (and Harriet) Scott Case<\/strong><\/h2>\n

“Clearly, the political system was breaking down, unable to contain sectional rivalry and violence.\u00a0 Perhaps, thought Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Supreme Court could resolve once and for all the nation’s split over slavery.\u00a0 On March 6, 1857, in Dred Scott v. Sanford, a divided Supreme Court ruled on the case of a slave who argued that his residence in Illinois and the Wisconsin territory had freed him from bondage.\u00a0 The majority ruled that Scott remained a slave, that as a slave he was not a citizen and had ‘no rights which the white man was bound to respect,’ and that the Missouri Compromise ban on slavery was unconstitutional because it deprived citizens of their property without due process of law.” –Louis Masur, The Civil War, p. 7<\/p>\n

“In the days after the 1856 presidential election, Buchanan made his plans for his time in office clear. He talked with Chief Justice Roger Taney on inauguration day about a court decision he hoped to see handled during his time in office. Indeed, not long after the inauguration, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that would come to define Buchanan\u2019s presidency. The Dred Scott decision, Scott v. Sandford<\/em>, ruled that Black Americans could not be citizens of the United States and therefore could be transported as chattel from any state to another regardless of state law.29<\/a><\/sup> This gave the Buchanan administration and its southern allies a direct repudiation of the Missouri Compromise. The court ruled that Scott, a Missouri slave, had no right to sue in United States courts. The Dred Scott decision signaled that the federal government was now fully committed to extending slavery as far and as wide as it might want.” —American Yawp, Chap. 13, Sec. V<\/a><\/p>\n