Dred Scott v. Sanford and President Buchanan

An error occurred trying to load this video.

Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support.

Coming up next: John Brown's Raid at Harpers Ferry: Fighting Slavery

You're on a roll. Keep up the good work!

Take Quiz Watch Next Lesson
Your next lesson will play in 10 seconds
  • 0:05 Dred Scott
  • 1:47 Supreme Court Rules
  • 5:03 Presidency of James Buchanan
  • 9:12 A Splintering Nation
Save Save Save

Want to watch this again later?

Log in or sign up to add this lesson to a Custom Course.

Log in or Sign up

Speed Speed

Recommended Lessons and Courses for You

Lesson Transcript
Instructor: Steven Shirley
The Dred Scott decision was one of the most important turning points in the debate over slavery in the United States. It came during the presidency of James Buchanan, a man well qualified but ill suited for the job of keeping the nation together. This lesson discusses both as we attempt to understand the dynamics that led to the American Civil War.

Dred Scott

Tensions had been rising steadily for over a decade between the North and the South since the tenuous political peace that had existed after the Nullification Crisis (a conflict over state versus federal rights). This peace was now being tested in the Missouri and Kansas territories. Many in the North believed that the South had every intention of extending the peculiar institution of slavery as far as it could, and events to come at the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 further cemented this belief.

The Dred Scott decision, as it has come to be known, would set back the cause of free blacks, abolitionists and moral crusaders in the United States in ways not imagined before the decision was handed down. But to understand how and why, let us first look at how the Supreme Court came to hear the case.

Map of freed and non-freed slave states
Freed Nonfreed Slave States Map

In 1834, a white man by the name of Dr. John Emerson of St. Louis, MO, joined the army to serve as a surgeon. He was assigned to a duty station in Illinois and was later transferred to the Wisconsin Territory. He would then return to Missouri, and throughout this trek, he was accompanied by his slave, Dred Scott. After the death of Dr. Emerson in 1846, Scott and his wife Harriet, whom Scott had married while in Wisconsin with Dr. Emerson, befriended a lawyer and decided to sue in the courts of Missouri for their freedom. Their argument? Simple. They claimed residence in Illinois, where slavery was illegal, and also in Wisconsin, where the Missouri Compromise had been outlawed. If the court supported their cause, Scott and his wife would be free.

Supreme Court Rules

If only things were that simple. There were bigger issues at work behind the scenes with larger consequences for Dred and Harriet Scott. Among them was the question of whether Congress or local governments had the power to outlaw slavery in the territories. If they didn't, no slave could ever petition for their freedom in these territories; it would be a moot point. Things moved slowly in the courts - so slow in fact that after several years of litigation, Scott was sold to a new owner named John Sanford, causing a refilling of the case against Sanford. The case finally reached the Supreme Court of the United States on March 6, 1857, over ten years after the original lawsuit had been filed. Justice was anything but swift. Nonetheless, Scott was going to get his decision.

It wasn't positive. The court ruled that free or slave, blacks were not citizens. Therefore, Scott had no right to sue in federal court. In fact, he had no rights at all under the U.S. Constitution. He was not considered a citizen! The court continued by declaring that under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, the federal government could not deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of the law. But wait a minute. I bet you're asking, 'Isn't that what they were doing to Mr. Scott?' Indeed, but the court did not see him as the aggrieved party. Instead, the aggrieved party was the late Dr. Emerson, who had been deprived of his property - his slaves - by the Missouri Compromise!

Portrait of Dred Scott
Dred Scott Portrait

What is more, if Congress had no right to repeal slavery in the territories that were not yet states, how could the local governments in these territories do so? They couldn't, according to the Supreme Court. In fact, the decision made it so that nothing could be done to the institution of slavery until such time as these territories in our ever-expanding West became states. Until such time as they became states, slavery was as inviolate as the freedom of speech or religion or any civil liberty granted by the Constitution. In one fell swoop, it seemed the court was saying that slavery was not some small, regionalized, peculiar institution but instead a nationwide right that could only be abolished when states, not territories, passed laws to do so. It was a lot to swallow, not only for the defeated Mr. Scott, but for abolitionists across the entire country.

Northern critics of slavery could not escape the irony of the court's citing of the Bill of Rights to keep blacks in chains, and the institution of slavery seemed destined to extend from the South all the way to the new territories - even to the Pacific Ocean. Just as the Nullification Crisis had convinced many in the South that the political deck was stacked against them, the Dred Scott decision convinced many in the North that slavery was not going to be defeated politically; something else would be required. What was that something else? That was yet to be known, but things did not look good for the United States.

Presidency of James Buchanan

The lead up to the decision on the Dred Scott case was being watched closely by all politicians on all sides, including one future president, James Buchanan. His campaign had been one that featured a conciliatory tone and rhetoric, urging the nation and his supporters to wait. Wait for the Supreme Court decision on Scott, and respect it, no matter the outcome. Looking back through the prism of history, one can now see that this was a foolish statement to make, one of many missteps that haunted his presidency. What is more, it is one reason why President Buchanan did not - and does not - rate highly among most historians for being a great president. It also did not help that Buchanan came to the presidency at a time when the nation was rapidly changing, growing and dividing. He was the wrong man at the wrong time. Critics argue that Buchanan was too rigid in his application of constitutional principles, failing to see the realities around him, including the North's refusal to accept the growing institution of slavery and the destruction of the Whig Party, which gave rise to an ardent abolitionist party known as the Republicans.

President James Buchanan
President James Buchanan

To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account

Register to view this lesson

Are you a student or a teacher?

Unlock Your Education

See for yourself why 30 million people use Study.com

Become a Study.com member and start learning now.
Become a Member  Back
What teachers are saying about Study.com
Try it risk-free for 30 days

Earning College Credit

Did you know… We have over 200 college courses that prepare you to earn credit by exam that is accepted by over 1,500 colleges and universities. You can test out of the first two years of college and save thousands off your degree. Anyone can earn credit-by-exam regardless of age or education level.

To learn more, visit our Earning Credit Page

Transferring credit to the school of your choice

Not sure what college you want to attend yet? Study.com has thousands of articles about every imaginable degree, area of study and career path that can help you find the school that's right for you.

Create an account to start this course today
Try it risk-free for 30 days!
Create an account