Conflict in Court; The Evidence Used
Map of Missouri Compromise
This map of American states and territory directly after the Missouri Compromise shows the split of free states and slave states, along with the newly divided territory from the Louisiana Purchase. When the slave state of Missouri was added to the country, the free state of Maine was also added to balance out the numbers of free vs. slave. The map exemplifies the conflict of slavery by literally showing the country split in half over the situation around the time after 1820. Along with the free northern states and the southern slaves states, America still had a mass of unorganized territory to sort out. Dred Scott believed that since he had once resided in Illinois and Wisconsin, both states that was deemed “free” on the map, a compromise could be made that would allow Scott be given the rights of a freed slave.
This map of American states and territory directly after the Missouri Compromise shows the split of free states and slave states, along with the newly divided territory from the Louisiana Purchase. When the slave state of Missouri was added to the country, the free state of Maine was also added to balance out the numbers of free vs. slave. The map exemplifies the conflict of slavery by literally showing the country split in half over the situation around the time after 1820. Along with the free northern states and the southern slaves states, America still had a mass of unorganized territory to sort out. Dred Scott believed that since he had once resided in Illinois and Wisconsin, both states that was deemed “free” on the map, a compromise could be made that would allow Scott be given the rights of a freed slave.
Map of the Missouri Compromise Compared to America in 1854 After Kansas-Nebraska Act
This map shows the status of slavery in the American lands between the time of 1850 to 1854, closer to the time of Dred Scott’s Supreme Court trial. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 added the states of Kansas and Nebraska to America, allowing new land to be used for farming and extending the railroad. Overall, the North was still the place for free states and the South the place for slaves. After first pleading to the Missouri Court in a slave state, Scott went to the United States Supreme Court in yet another slave state. This map helps to show just how split and divided the nation was at the time, conflict brewing over slavery.
This map shows the status of slavery in the American lands between the time of 1850 to 1854, closer to the time of Dred Scott’s Supreme Court trial. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 added the states of Kansas and Nebraska to America, allowing new land to be used for farming and extending the railroad. Overall, the North was still the place for free states and the South the place for slaves. After first pleading to the Missouri Court in a slave state, Scott went to the United States Supreme Court in yet another slave state. This map helps to show just how split and divided the nation was at the time, conflict brewing over slavery.
Forcing Slavery Down the Throats of Free-Soilers
This is an image by John Magee published in a magazine at the time of Dred Scott’s court case. The illustration shows slavery becoming a big topic of conflict in the United States in the mid-1800’s. Some political parties were being accused of “shoving slavery down the throats” of others at the time. Free-soilers opposed the extension of slavery into U.S. territories and the admission of slave states into the Union. This political cartoon is showing anti-abolitionists attempting to push slavery onto free-soilers in hopes of keeping slavery in the states. The Dred Scott Decision was an important trial in terms of slavery, so while the anti-abolitionists lobbied against the freeing of Dred Scott’s family, people pro-slavery pushed their views onto the free-soilers of the time as well. Both sides were in constant conflict over the issue of slavery, with each side attempting to spread their ideas more successfully.
This is an image by John Magee published in a magazine at the time of Dred Scott’s court case. The illustration shows slavery becoming a big topic of conflict in the United States in the mid-1800’s. Some political parties were being accused of “shoving slavery down the throats” of others at the time. Free-soilers opposed the extension of slavery into U.S. territories and the admission of slave states into the Union. This political cartoon is showing anti-abolitionists attempting to push slavery onto free-soilers in hopes of keeping slavery in the states. The Dred Scott Decision was an important trial in terms of slavery, so while the anti-abolitionists lobbied against the freeing of Dred Scott’s family, people pro-slavery pushed their views onto the free-soilers of the time as well. Both sides were in constant conflict over the issue of slavery, with each side attempting to spread their ideas more successfully.
Words of the Chief Justice
“. . . [T]he rights of private property have been guarded with . . . care. Thus the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law. And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offence against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.”
“We think they [people of African ancestry] are not [citizens], and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.”
- Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
These spoken words by Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice at the time of Dred Scott, states that when a citizen of the United States takes their property (slave or not) into a state and does not break any of the laws in that state, it is illegal to prosecute him by the due process of law because in the Constitution, it states that no citizen can be deprived of “life, liberty, and property.” In the second paragraph it is explained that any people of “African ancestry” are not considered citizens. Therefore, it is legal for African descendants to be considered property. The Dred Scott Decision ruled that Dred Scott was, in fact, property, creating conflict in court.
“. . . [T]he rights of private property have been guarded with . . . care. Thus the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law. And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offence against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.”
“We think they [people of African ancestry] are not [citizens], and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.”
- Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
These spoken words by Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice at the time of Dred Scott, states that when a citizen of the United States takes their property (slave or not) into a state and does not break any of the laws in that state, it is illegal to prosecute him by the due process of law because in the Constitution, it states that no citizen can be deprived of “life, liberty, and property.” In the second paragraph it is explained that any people of “African ancestry” are not considered citizens. Therefore, it is legal for African descendants to be considered property. The Dred Scott Decision ruled that Dred Scott was, in fact, property, creating conflict in court.
Move to Analysis Page 2!