Display Case: MHS Documents Related to Dred Scott's Quest for Freedom
The existence of slavery and its expansion as the country grew westward
were the biggest politica
l issues of the early nineteenth century. In
the midst of the slavery debate was a court decision that
many historians
believe was the key event that led the country into civil war. The year
2007 marks
the 150th anniversary of this historic Supreme Court decision.
Dred Scott was a slave owned by a U.S. Army doctor who took Scott with
him to the Wisconsin
Territory, where slavery was illegal. In 1846, Scott
sued for his freedom by using the argument that
while serving with the
doctor in a free territory his status as a slave ceased to exist. He
and his
family had the right to be free. Lawyers on both sides argued
that the issue lay in the
constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise
of 1820. The case eventually made its way to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
In 1857 the Court made its ruling. Chief Justice Roger Taney and a majority
of justices, most of
whom were southerners, ruled against Scott. They
argued that slaves were property and had no rights under the law. African
Americans could not sue for their freedom.
The decision enraged abolitionists and strengthened the stand of proslavery southerners. The issue of slavery would not be decided until after four years of bloodshed and destruction during the Civil War. Emancipation and the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1865 gave all slaves their freedom. Scott’s wish was secured after the Court decision, when his attorney, Taylor Blow, purchased the Scott family from their master and granted them their freedom.
The Dred Scott decision of 1857 continued to be the subject of much public discourse during the years leading up to the Civil War. Among the politicians who referred to the landmark court case were Illinois senator Stephen A. Douglas and Missouri senator Thomas Hart Benton.
Visitors to the Missouri History Museum have an opportunity to see the following documents related to Dred Scott's quest for freedom:
-
Remarks of Hon. Stephen A. Douglas, on Kansas, Utah, and the Dred Scott decision, 1857
-
Historical and legal examination of that part of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott case, by Thomas Hart Benton, 1857
-
Short notes on the Dred Scott case, by J. T. Brooke, Cincinnati, 1861
-
J. T. Brooke was an Ohio minister who stated that he normally did not preach about politics, but that this situation seemed to warrant an exception
-
Cotton Is King, and proslavery arguments, by E. N. Elliott, Augusta, Georgia, 1860. (This volume includes the text of the Dred Scott decision. Another copy of this book is in the Missouri Historical Society’s collection and contains the following inscription: "This book found in the Executive Mansion after the flight of Gov. Jackson is probably the foundation of his treason." Claiborne Fox Jackson was governor of Missouri at the outbreak of the Civil War. Missouri’s government split over whether to remain with the Union or to secede, and Jackson led the Missouri legislators who supported the Confederacy to a government in exile.)
-
Report of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the opinions of the judges thereof, in the case of Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford. December term, 1856. Washington, D.C., 1857. A previous owner of this book pasted in a picture of Dred Scott.
-
Dred and Harriet Scott free Negro bonds, 1858. Soon after the Supreme Court decision of 1857, Taylor Blow, a descendant of Peter Blow, who had first owned Dred Scott, acquired Scott and his family and gave them their freedom. These freedom bonds document the transaction. Scott died a few months later, on September 17, 1858, still with no guaranteed protection of his freedom, but at least a free man.
Back
Summary of Decision
Past Gateway Articles
Dred Scott Portrait
MHS Discovery Tour (PDF)
Audio/Video Clips
All content © 1999 - 2007 Missouri
Historical Society.
Text or graphics may not be copied, rewritten or distributed in any manner
whatsoever unless specifically noted,
and may not be reused, reprinted, or reposted without written permission.
