Dred Scott Case File Worksheet
Case File: Scott v. Sandford
Supreme Court of the United States, 1857
Student:
Date:
Part 1: Freedom of Movement
Think about how we travel today. If you have a driver's license in one state, it is recognized in all 50 states. But imagine if your basic human rights changed the moment you crossed a state line.
Prompt: Should a person's legal status (citizen vs. non-citizen, free vs. unfree) change based on the specific state they are standing in? Why or why not?
Part 2: Case Notes & Video Evidence
Pause at 05:41: The Train Analogy
Summarize the "Thought Bubble" dilemma regarding the train passing through free/slave states.
Pause at 06:25: The Verdict
Record the vote count and Chief Justice Roger Taney's primary reason for rejecting Scott's suit.
Taney's Reasoning
Taney famously wrote that Black people "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." Based on the video, what were the two major parts of his ruling?
Part 3: The Dissenting Opinion
Chief Justice Taney wrote the majority opinion, but 2 justices disagreed. Your task: Work with a partner to write a one-paragraph dissent.
Dissent Requirements:
- Argue why Scott should be considered a citizen or have the right to sue.
- Use moral arguments (humanity/fairness) OR 14th Amendment concepts (birthright citizenship, though not yet law).
- Be formal and persuasive.
Dred Scott Video Transcript
Official Transcript
Crash Course Black American History #16
Subject
The Dred Scott Decision
[00:00]
Clint Smith: Hi. I'm Clint Smith. And this is Crash Course Black American History. When you think of US citizenship, you might think of your blue passport. Or placing your hand over your heart and saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Or waving an American flag as you watch fireworks during the Fourth of July with a plate full of barbecue.
Citizenship is something that matters to people. Not only is citizenship a source of pride for many, but it has vast implications for how someone can live their life. It can determine where you work. Where you can travel. Whether or not you can vote. And even if you'll be allowed to stay in the country with your family.
[00:54]
Today in the US, according to the law, if you're born in this country, you're considered a citizen. Shout out to the 14th Amendment. But, it wasn't always this way. For Black people in the 19th century, the question of whether they were, or could ever be, citizens of the United States was part of a decade-long court battle that centered on the circumstances of a Black man named Dred Scott.
[01:49]
The person at the center of this case, Dred Scott, was an enslaved Black man who was living in Missouri. Historians estimate that he was born into slavery around the start of the 19th century in Southampton County, Virginia, and his enslaver was a man named Peter Blow. Scott was eventually purchased by an army surgeon named John Emerson, who moved Scott from the enslaved state of Missouri to the free state of Illinois and then again to the free territory of Wisconsin.
[02:47]
So in 1846, Dred Scott filed a suit for his freedom in a St. Louis district court. His claim was based on Missouri law and precedent that if an enslaved person was relocated to a free state or territory, they were then considered free. And thus, they couldn't be re-enslaved upon entering a slave state.
[03:18]
After a bit of back and forth, Dred Scott did eventually win his family's freedom in 1850. But the case got appealed to Missouri's Supreme Court, which ruled against the lower court's decision while noting quote, "Times now are not as they were. When the former decisions on the subject were made."
[04:07]
The moment this case arrived at the Supreme Court was a pivotal one in the larger context of US history... The Louisiana Purchase had doubled the landmass of the country, which meant that there were new states to admit. This dispute led to the Missouri Compromise, which designated part of the Louisiana Purchase as free territory and part of it as slave territory.
[05:41]
Thought Bubble: If you're riding on a train leaving a slave state and pass through a free state? Is that Black person free on the train while it's in the free state, but enslaved again when it passes back into the slave state? These were big questions that the country was wrestling with.
[06:19]
The Supreme Court didn't buy Scott's arguments. And the justices decided 7-2 with Sandford. Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote in the majority opinion that Scott did not have the standing to sue because enslaved African Americans weren't citizens of the United States. He wrote that Black people "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution..."
[07:22]
What's more, Taney's decision declared that the ban on slavery was unconstitutional in territories that were part of the Louisiana Purchase... This ruling infuriated abolitionists, who perceived this as an attempt to prevent any debate and discussion about how and where slavery would exist in the United States.
[10:44]
This is a powerful quote, and a sobering one. And what it shows is that while there most certainly has been discrimination against many different groups of people throughout US history... there is a specific sort of insidiousness to the nature of anti-Black racism that is important for us to understand if we are going to fully account for our history. Thanks for watching. I'll see you next time.
Standing
The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. Taney ruled Scott had no "standing" as he wasn't a citizen.
Majority Opinion
The official judicial decision agreed upon by more than half the judges on a court.
Unconstitutional
Not in accordance with a political constitution; unauthorized by the law of the land.
Dred Scott Decision Slides
The Dred Scott
Decision
Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Legal Analysis
Constitutional Debate
Warm-up Discussion
"Does your legal status change when you cross a state line?"
Think about driver's licenses or marriage laws. Should basic rights like citizenship or freedom be "toggled" on and off depending on which state you are standing in?
Turn and talk to your neighbor for 2 minutes.
Case Investigation
Embedded media
PAUSE 1 05:41 (Train Analogy)
PAUSE 2 06:25 (The Verdict)
The Train Analogy
Imagine an enslaved person on a train moving from Missouri (Slave State) to Illinois (Free State).
"Is that Black person free on the train while it's in the free state, but enslaved again when it passes back into the slave state?"
Discussion Question
How does the court balance the property rights of the enslaver with the laws of the free territory?
The Ruling (7-2)
1. Standing
Black people could never be citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court.
2. Territorial Bans
Congress had no power to ban slavery in territories (Missouri Compromise = Unconstitutional).
"...they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
— Chief Justice Roger Taney
Dissenting Opinion
20 MINUTES
With your partner, draft a one-paragraph dissent.
- Argue why Dred Scott should be a citizen.
- Use moral logic or 14th Amendment concepts (Birthright Citizenship).
- Be formal, legal, and persuasive.
Share Your Voice
Who has a compelling argument to share with the court? Let's hear one dissenting opinion before we adjourn.
Dred Scott Teacher Guide
Teacher Guide & Key
Lesson: Scott v. Sandford Analysis
Teacher Reference Only
Worksheet Answer Key
Part 2: Video Notes
05:41: Train Analogy
Enslaved people crossing into free states might "toggle" between free and enslaved. The dilemma is whether status follows the person or is dictated by the ground they stand on.
06:25: The Verdict
7-2 Decision. Taney ruled Scott wasn't a citizen and had no standing to sue. Also stated Black people were never intended to be citizens by the Framers.
Taney's Reasoning (Two Major Parts)
- Citizenship/Standing: Black people (enslaved or free) cannot be citizens and cannot sue in federal court.
- Territorial Authority: Congress cannot ban slavery in territories; the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because it violated property rights.
Dissenting Opinion Rubric
| Criteria | Exceeds Expectations (3) | Meets Expectations (2) | Approaching (1) |
|---|
| Legal/Moral Argument | Clearly identifies a specific counter-argument (e.g., birthright citizenship or natural rights) to Taney's logic. | Makes a general argument about fairness or citizenship. | Argument is vague or does not address Taney's points. |
| Persuasiveness | Uses sophisticated, judicial language. Opinion feels authoritative. | Maintains a serious tone throughout the paragraph. | Language is too informal or conversational. |
| Historical Accuracy | Accurately references "once free, always free" or the concept of the 14th Amendment. | References the general outcome of the case correctly. | Includes historical errors or misunderstandings. |
Teaching Tips & Differentiation
Scaffolding:
Provide sentence stems for the dissent: "The Court errs in its conclusion because..." or "Regardless of one's status in a slave state, upon entering free soil, a person must..."
Extension:
Ask students to predict how this ruling specifically "accelerated the path to the Civil War" by looking at abolitionist reactions mentioned in the video.
