Dred Scott Decision

Target: I can explain the two main parts of the Dred Scott decision by analyzing excerpts from the Supreme Court's majority and dissenting opinions.

Key Vocabulary

• Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): The Supreme Court case that ruled Black people (enslaved or free) were not citizens and that Congress could not ban slavery in the territories.

• Citizen: A person who is a legal member of a country and has the rights and protections of that country's government.

• Chief Justice Roger B. Taney: The head of the Supreme Court who wrote the "majority opinion" (the final ruling) for the Dred Scott case.

• Property: Something that is legally owned by a person. In this case, the court ruled that enslaved people were "property."

• Dissenting Opinion: A written statement by a judge who disagrees with the majority ruling in a court case.

Part 1: Do Now (5 minutes)

Directions: Read the prompt below and write a 5-8 sentence response.

Prompt: What does it mean to be a "citizen" of a country (not just the legal designation, but in day-today life)? What are some of the most important rights that citizens have? In a detailed paragraph, explain what life might be like for someone who lives in a country but is not considered a citizen and has no legal rights.

Sentence Starter: To be a "citizen" means... Some of the most important rights are... Life for a non-citizen might be like... because...

Part 2: Analyzing the Sources

Directions: Analyze the two documents below and then answer the questions that follow.

Source 1: The Majority Opinion, Dred Scott v. Sandford (Adapted Excerpt, 1857)

(Written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney)

Original Text	Simplified Text
In the opinion of the court, the people of the African race are not included... under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that document provides...	The court believes that Black people are not and were never meant to be "citizens" under the Constitution. Therefore, they cannot claim any of the rights that citizens get.
They have for more than a century been regarded as beings of an inferior order... so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect...	For over 100 years, they have been seen as "inferior"... so inferior that they have no rights that a white man needs to respect.
...the court is of opinion, that... Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri... and was not entitled as such to sue in its courts.	The court rules that Dred Scott was not a citizen and, therefore, he is not allowed to sue in court.
The court is also of the opinion that the Act of Congress [the Missouri Compromise] which prohibited a citizen from... owning property of this kind [enslaved people] in the territory... is... void.	The court also rules that the Missouri Compromise, which banned slavery in the territories, is unconstitutional and "void" (illegal). Congress cannot ban slavery anywhere.

Source 2: The Dissenting Opinion, Dred Scott v. Sandford (Adapted Excerpt, 1857)

(Written by Justice Benjamin Curtis)

Original Text	Simplified Text
It has been argued that Black people are not citizens. But I must say that this is not true.	People argue Black people aren't citizens. That is false.
At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, in five of the thirteen original States... free Black men were not only citizens, but they also had the right to vote... They were "people of the United States."	When the Constitution was approved, free Black men were citizens and could even vote in 5 of the 13 original states. They were "people of the U.S."
Therefore, it is not true that the Constitution was made exclusively for the white race. And it is not true that people of African descent were not intended to be citizens.	So, it is not true that the Constitution was only for white people. And it's not true that Black people were never meant to be citizens.
...To deny the right of a free Black person to sue in a court is to deny his existence as a citizen of the United States.	To say a free Black man can't sue in court is to say he is not a citizen at all.

Analysis Questions

Directions: Answer questions 1-2 on your own. Then, work with a partner to answer question 3.

1. According to Source 1 (Justice Taney), what are the two main reasons the court ruled against Dred Scott?

Sentence Starter: The court ruled against Dred Scott first because Taney argued that... and second because...

2. How does Justice Curtis (Source 2) use historical facts to argue that Justice Taney (Source 1) is completely wrong?

Sentence Starter: Justice Curtis argues Taney is wrong by pointing out the historical fact that... This fact proves that...

3. (Work with your partner) How does this decision (Source 1) make all future compromise impossible? 

Sentence Starter: This decision makes compromise impossible because the court ruled that... This means that the main goal of the anti-slavery North...

Part 3: Exit Ticket (5 minutes)

Directions: Answer the following prompt in a complete paragraph (5-8 sentences).

Prompt: Using evidence from both Justice Taney (Source 1) and Justice Curtis (Source 2), answer the Essential Question: How did the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision destroy compromise and push the nation closer to civil war?

Sentence Starter: The Dred Scott decision destroyed compromise because... Justice Taney (Source 1) argued... This ruling pushed the nation closer to war because... However, Justice Curtis (Source 2) showed this was wrong by stating...