Dred Scott: Why the Supreme Court Should Not Have Deprived a Black Man of His Liberty

The United States has long grappled with racial conflict. A critical Supreme Court case that determined African Americans’ legal status was Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). The enslaved Dred Scott sued for his freedom when his master took him from Missouri, a slave state, to Wisconsin, a free state, and back. Chief Justice Roger Taney’s majority opinion proclaimed that because African Americans were not intended to be U.S. citizens by the Constitution, they could not sue in federal court, ruling in Sandford’s favor. Major debates in the case pertained to three provisions: whether African Americans have the potential for U.S. citizenship or federal trials, which legislative bodies could regulate slavery and whether slaves were property, and whether granting a slave freedom deprives his owner of due process for his property. The Supreme Court should have ruled in favor of Dred Scott because the Constitution does not deny citizenship or federal trials to African Americans. The unconstitutionality of the Missouri Compromise proves slaves are not property, and subjecting Dred Scott to slavery upon return to Missouri deprives him of his liberty without due process.