The Info List - Dred Scott V. Sandford

Dred Scott
Dred Scott
v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), also known as the Dred Scott
Dred Scott
case, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law
US labor law
and constitutional law. It held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves",[2][3] whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court;[4][5] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved man of "the negro African race"[3] who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott's request. The decision was only the second time that the Supreme Court had ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.[6] Although Taney hoped that his ruling would settle the slavery question, the decision immediately spurred vehement dissent from anti-slavery elements in the North, and proved to be an indirect catalyst for the American Civil War. It was functionally superseded by the Civil Rights Act of 1866
Civil Rights Act of 1866
and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1868, which gave African Americans full citizenship. The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott
Dred Scott
v. Sandford is unanimously denounced by modern scholars. Many contemporary lawyers, and most modern legal scholars, consider the ruling regarding slavery in the territories to be obiter dictum and not a binding precedent. Bernard Schwartz says it "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions—Chief Justice C.E. Hughes called it the Court's greatest self-inflicted wound".[7] Junius P. Rodriguez says it is "universally condemned as the U.S. Supreme Court's worst decision".[8] Historian David Thomas Konig says it was "unquestionably, our court's worst decision ever".[5][9][10]


1 Background 2 Procedural history

2.1 First attempt 2.2 Scott v. Emerson 2.3 Scott v. Sanford 2.4 Influence of President Buchanan

3 Supreme Court ruling

3.1 Opinion of the Court 3.2 Concurrence by Justice Nelson 3.3 Dissents by Justice Curtis and Justice McLean

4 Consequences

4.1 Economic 4.2 Political

5 Reaction 6 The Scott family's fate 7 Sanford as defendant 8 Later references 9 Legacy 10 See also 11 Notes 12 Further reading 13 External links

Background[edit] Main article: Dred Scott

Dred Scott

Events leading to the American Civil War

Slavery Northwest Ordinance Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions Battle of Negro Fort Missouri Compromise Tariff of 1828 Nat Turner's slave rebellion Nullification Crisis The Amistad Prigg v. Pennsylvania Texas annexation Mexican–American War Wilmot Proviso Manifest destiny Underground Railroad Nashville Convention Compromise of 1850 Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 Uncle Tom's Cabin Kansas–Nebraska Act Ostend Manifesto Bleeding Kansas Caning of Charles Sumner Dred Scott
Dred Scott
v. Sandford The Impending Crisis of the South Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry 1860 presidential election Crittenden Compromise Secession of Southern States Star of the West Corwin Amendment Battle of Fort Sumter

v t e

Dred Scott
Dred Scott
was born a slave in Virginia in 1795. Little is known of his early years.[11] His owner, Peter Blow, moved to Alabama
in 1818, taking his six slaves along to work a farm near Huntsville. In 1830, Blow gave up farming and settled in St. Louis, Missouri, where he sold Scott to U.S. Army surgeon Dr. John Emerson.[12] After purchasing Scott, Emerson took him to Fort Armstrong in Illinois. A free state, Illinois had been free as a territory under the Northwest Ordinance
Northwest Ordinance
of 1787, and had prohibited slavery in its constitution in 1819 when it was admitted as a state. In 1836, Emerson moved with Scott from Illinois to Fort Snelling
Fort Snelling
in the Wisconsin territory
Wisconsin territory
in what has become the state of Minnesota. Slavery
in the Wisconsin Territory (some of which, including Fort Snelling, was part of the Louisiana Purchase) was prohibited by the United States Congress under the Missouri Compromise. During his stay at Fort Snelling, Scott married Harriet Robinson in a civil ceremony by Harriet's owner, Major Lawrence Taliaferro, a justice of the peace who was also an Indian agent. The ceremony would have been unnecessary had Dred Scott
Dred Scott
been a slave, as slave marriages had no recognition in the law.[5][12] In 1837, the army ordered Emerson to Jefferson Barracks
Jefferson Barracks
Military Post, south of St. Louis, Missouri. Emerson left Scott and his wife at Fort Snelling, where he leased their services out for profit. By hiring Scott out in a free state, Emerson was effectively bringing the institution of slavery into a free state, which was a direct violation of the Missouri Compromise, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Wisconsin Enabling Act.[5] Before the end of the year, the army reassigned Emerson to Fort Jesup in Louisiana, where Emerson married Eliza Irene Sanford in February, 1838. Emerson sent for Scott and Harriet, who proceeded to Louisiana to serve their master and his wife. While en route to Louisiana, Scott's daughter Eliza was born on a steamboat underway on the Mississippi
River between Illinois and what would become Iowa. Because Eliza was born in free territory, she was technically born as a free person under both federal and state laws. Upon entering Louisiana, the Scotts could have sued for their freedom, but did not. Finkelman suggests that in all likelihood, the Scotts would have been granted their freedom by a Louisiana court, as it had respected laws of free states that slaveholders forfeited their right to slaves if they brought them in for extended periods. This had been the holding in Louisiana state courts for more than 20 years.[5] Toward the end of 1838, the army reassigned Emerson to Fort Snelling. By 1840, Emerson's wife Irene returned to St. Louis with their slaves, while Dr. Emerson served in the Seminole War. While in St. Louis, she hired them out. In 1842, Emerson left the army. After he died in the Iowa Territory in 1843, his widow Irene inherited his estate, including the Scotts. For three years after John Emerson's death, she continued to lease out the Scotts as hired slaves. In 1846, Scott attempted to purchase his and his family's freedom, but Irene Emerson refused, prompting Scott to resort to legal recourse.[13] Procedural history[edit] First attempt[edit] Having been unsuccessful in his attempt to purchase freedom for his family and himself, and with the help of abolitionist legal advisers, Scott sued Emerson for his freedom in a Missouri court in 1846. Scott received financial assistance for his case from the family of his previous owner, Peter Blow.[5] Blow's daughter Charlotte was married to Joseph Charless, an officer at the Bank of Missouri. Charless signed the legal documents as security for Dred Scott
Dred Scott
and secured the services of the bank's attorney, Samuel Mansfield Bay, for the trial.[12] Scott based his legal argument on precedents such as Somersett v. Stewart, Winny v. Whitesides,[14] and Rachel v. Walker,[15] claiming his presence and residence in free territories required his emancipation. Scott's lawyers argued the same for Scott's wife, and further claimed that Eliza Scott's birth on a steamboat between a free state and a free territory had made her free upon birth. It was expected that the Scotts would win their freedom with relative ease, since Missouri courts had previously heard more than ten other cases in which they had freed slaves who had been taken into free territory.[5] Furthermore, the case had been assigned to Judge Alexander Hamilton, who was known to be sympathetic to slave freedom suits.[12] Scott was represented by three lawyers during the course of the case because it was over a year from the time of the original petition filing to the trial. His first lawyer was Francis B. Murdoch, who was replaced by Charles D. Drake. When Drake left St. Louis in 1847, Samuel M. Bay
Samuel M. Bay
took over as Scott's lawyer.[16] In June 1847, Scott lost his case due to a technicality: Scott had not proven that he was actually enslaved by Irene Emerson. At the trial, grocer Samuel Russell had testified that he was leasing Scott from Irene Emerson, but on cross-examination he admitted that the leasing arrangements had actually been made by his wife Adeline. Thus, Russell's testimony was ruled hearsay and the jury returned a verdict for Emerson.[12] Scott v. Emerson[edit] In December 1847, Judge Hamilton granted Scott a new trial. Emerson appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Missouri, which affirmed the trial court's order in 1848. Due to a major fire, a cholera epidemic, and two continuances, the new trial did not begin until January 1850. While the case awaited trial, Scott and his family were placed in the custody of the St. Louis County Sheriff, who continued to lease out the services of Scott and his family. The proceeds were placed in escrow, to be paid to Scott's owner or himself upon resolution of the case. In the 1850 trial, Scott was represented by Alexander P. Field and David N. Hall, both of whom had previously shared offices with Charles Edmund LaBeaume, the brother of Peter Blow's daughter-in-law. The hearsay problem was surmounted by a deposition from Adeline Russell, stating that she had leased the Scotts from Emerson. The jury found in favor of Scott and his family. Unwilling to accept the loss of four slaves and a substantial escrow account, Emerson appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri, although by that point she had moved to Massachusetts and transferred ownership of Scott to her brother, John F. A. Sanford. In November 1852, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the Scotts were still legally slaves and that they should have sued for freedom while living in a free state. Chief Justice William Scott declared:

Times are not now as they were when the former decisions on this subject were made. Since then not only individuals but States have been possessed with a dark and fell spirit in relation to slavery, whose gratification is sought in the pursuit of measures, whose inevitable consequences must be the overthrow and destruction of our government. Under such circumstances it does not behoove the State of Missouri to show the least countenance to any measure which might gratify this spirit. She is willing to assume her full responsibility for the existence of slavery within her limits, nor does she seek to share or divide it with others.[17]

Scott v. Sanford[edit] At this point, the case looked hopeless, and the Blow family decided that they could no longer pay for Scott's legal costs. Scott also lost both of his lawyers, as Alexander Field had moved to Louisiana and David Hall had died. The case was now undertaken pro bono by Roswell Field, whose office employed Dred Scott
Dred Scott
as a janitor. Field also discussed the case with LaBeaume, who had taken over the lease on the Scotts in 1851.[18] Following the Missouri Supreme Court decision, Judge Hamilton turned down a request by Emerson's lawyers to release the rent payments from escrow and to deliver the slaves into their owner's custody.[12] In 1853, Dred Scott
Dred Scott
again sued his current owner, John Sanford,[1] but now in federal court. Sanford had returned to New York, so the federal courts now had diversity jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. In addition to the existing complaints, Scott also alleged that Sanford had assaulted his family and held them captive for six hours on January 1, 1853.[19] At trial in 1854, Judge Robert William Wells directed the jury to rely on Missouri law to settle the question of Scott's freedom. Since the Missouri Supreme Court had held that Scott remained a slave, the jury found in favor of Sanford. Scott then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the case was recorded as Dred Scott
Dred Scott
v. Sandford and entered history with that title. Scott was represented before the Supreme Court by Montgomery Blair
Montgomery Blair
and George Ticknor Curtis, whose brother Benjamin was a Supreme Court Justice. Sanford was represented by Reverdy Johnson
Reverdy Johnson
and Henry S. Geyer.[12] Influence of President Buchanan[edit] Historians discovered that after the Supreme Court had heard arguments in the case but before it had issued a ruling, President-elect James Buchanan wrote to his friend, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice John Catron, asking whether the case would be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court before his inauguration in March 1857.[20] Buchanan hoped the decision would quell unrest in the country over the slavery issue by issuing a ruling that put the future of slavery beyond the realm of political debate. Buchanan later successfully pressured Associate Justice Robert Cooper Grier, a Northerner, to join the Southern majority in Dred Scott
Dred Scott
to prevent the appearance that the decision was made along sectional lines.[21] Both by present-day standards and under the more lenient standards of the time, Buchanan's applying such political pressure to a member of a sitting court would be regarded as highly improper.[22] Republicans fueled speculation as to Buchanan's influence by publicizing that Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
Roger B. Taney
had secretly informed Buchanan of the decision before Buchanan declared, in his inaugural address, that the slavery question would "be speedily and finally settled" by the Supreme Court.[23][24] Supreme Court ruling[edit] Opinion of the Court[edit] In a 7-2 decision penned by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Supreme Court held that it lacked Subject-matter jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction
by Article III's provision for diversity of citizenship because Scott was not a "citizen" in the relevant sense of the term and states could not naturalize as Article-III citizens the descendants of African slaves. Taney's majority opinion continued, in obiter dictum, to deem the Missouri Compromise
Missouri Compromise
of 1820 unconstitutional and foreclose Congress from freeing slaves within Federal territories. The principal holding that Scott was not an Article-III citizen was abrogated in 1868 by the Birthright Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[25] By opining on the fate of the Missouri Compromise, the decision, in effect, became the second in U.S. history to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional. The prohibition on territories from freeing slaves was the first time the Supreme Court invoked the legal doctrine of substantive due process.[26] Taney relied on historical analysis to support the Court's decision that Scott was not an Article-III citizen, and summarized the historical attitudes thusly:

[Black Africans imported as slaves] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.

Concurrence by Justice Nelson[edit]

Justice Samuel Nelson

Technically, Associate Justice Samuel Nelson
Samuel Nelson
did not concur in the judgment of the Supreme Court, for the formal judgment of that Court was that "the judgment [of the Circuit Court] for the defendant ... be reversed, and a mandate issued directing the suit [of plaintiff Scott] to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction", 60 U.S. at 454, whereas Nelson would have affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court, 60 U.S. at 469. However, in terms of the practical effect on Scott and his family, it was immaterial as to whether his case was to be dismissed, as ordered by the Court, or the judgment declaring on the merits that they were all still slaves be affirmed, as Nelson would have held. However, the legal theories of Nelson and the Court were very different. Nelson expressly declined to address the jurisdictional issue, but instead addressed the merits of Scott's case. The Supreme Court, which addressed the merits in dictum, expressed the view that the federal statute which had prohibited slavery in the "Territory of Upper Louisiana" was unconstitutional. (At the time of Scott's sojourn this area was administered as the Wisconsin Territory. The term "Territory of Upper Louisiana" was used in Nelson's opinion and the formal Statement of the Case. However, that was the name used for the area during French administration, not the American administration.) Nelson found it unnecessary to reach this constitutional issue. To Nelson, the merits properly turned on a principle of states' rights. He assumed for purposes of argument that Scott might have been emancipated during his sojourn in Illinois and/or his sojourn in Upper Louisiana. In Nelson's view, however, each state that permitted slavery had the constitutional right to determine what effect it would give to any emancipation that might have occurred elsewhere once the Negro person had returned to that state. A state might, as the State of Louisiana did for a period by court decision, decide to honor extraterritorial emancipation; or a state might, as the State of Missouri did when its Supreme Court reversed Scott's initial victory in the Missouri court, decide to nullify any extraterritorial emancipation and revive the slave status. Since the State of Missouri had clearly determined that it considered Scott still to be a slave, irrespective of any prior emancipation, that foreclosed the issue for Nelson, and the federal Circuit Court properly found him and his family to be slaves while they were in Missouri. Dissents by Justice Curtis and Justice McLean[edit]

Justice John McLean
John McLean
was the senior justice of the two dissenting opinions.

Justice John McLean
John McLean
dissented, writing that there was no basis for the claim that blacks could not be citizens. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, black men could vote in five of the thirteen states. This made them citizens not only of their states but of the United States.[27] Therefore, Justice McLean concluded that the argument that Scott was not a citizen was "more a matter of taste than of law". In his dissent, Justice McLean cited as precedent Marie Louise v. Marot, an 1835 case in which Louisiana Supreme Court
Louisiana Supreme Court
Chief Justice George Mathews Jr. ruled that "being free for one moment in France, it was not in the power of her former owner to reduce her again to slavery."[28]

Justice Curtis was the junior dissenting justice.

Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis, in dissent, attacked much of the Court's decision as obiter dicta, on the ground that once the Court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Scott's case, it must simply dismiss the action, and not pass judgment on the merits of the claims. The dissents by Curtis and McLean also attacked the Court's overturning of the Missouri Compromise
Missouri Compromise
on its merits, noting both that it was not necessary to decide the question, and also that none of the authors of the Constitution had ever objected on constitutional grounds to the United States Congress' adoption of the antislavery provisions of the Northwest Ordinance
Northwest Ordinance
passed by the Continental Congress, or the subsequent acts that barred slavery north of 36°30' N. Consequences[edit]

Part of a series on Slavery


Child labour Child soldiers Conscription Debt Forced marriage

Bride buying Wife selling

Forced prostitution Human trafficking Peonage Penal labour Sexual slavery Wage slavery



Ancient Rome Babylonia Ancient Greece

Topics and practices

Atlantic slave trade

Middle Passage

Arab slave trade

Ghilman Mamluk Saqaliba

Aztec Blackbirding Byzantine Empire Coolie Corvée
labor Field slaves in the United States House slaves Kholop Medieval Europe Panyarring Thrall Serfs

History Russia

Slave market Slave raiding Child soldiers


Galley slave Impressment Pirates Shanghaiing Slave ship

By country or region

Sub-Saharan Africa

Contemporary Africa Slavery
on the Barbary Coast Barbary slave trade Slave Coast Angola Chad Ethiopia Mali Mauritania Niger Somalia South Africa Sudan Seychelles

North and South America

Americas indigenous

U.S. Natives


Lei Áurea

Canada Caribbean

Barbados Code Noir

Cuba Haiti

revolt Restavek

Latin America Puerto Rico Trinidad United States

colonial maps female partus penal labor Slave codes interregional Human trafficking

Virgin Islands

Central, East, and South Asia

Human trafficking
Human trafficking
in Southeast Asia Bhutan China

Booi Aha Laogai


Debt bondage Chukri System


comfort women

South Korea

Yankee princess

North Korea Vietnam

Australia and Oceania

in Australia Human trafficking
Human trafficking
in Australia Slave raiding
Slave raiding
in Easter Island Human trafficking
Human trafficking
in Papua New Guinea Blackbirding
in Polynesia

Europe and North Asia

Sex trafficking in Europe Britain Denmark Dutch Republic Germany in World War II Malta Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia Spain



North Africa and West Asia

Iran Libya Human trafficking
Human trafficking
in the Middle East Ottoman Empire Yemen


Bible Christianity

Catholicism Mormonism


21st century

Judaism Bahá'í Faith

Opposition and resistance

Timeline Abolitionism

U.K. U.S.

Anti- Slavery
International Blockade of Africa

U.K. U.S.

Compensated emancipation Freedman


Freedom suit Abolitionists Slave Power Underground Railroad


Slave rebellion Slave Trade Acts International law 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution


Common law Indentured servitude Unfree labour Fugitive slaves

laws Great Dismal Swamp maroons

List of slaves


Slave narrative

films songs

Slave name Slave catcher Slave patrol Slave Route Project Treatment in U.S.

breeding court cases Washington Jefferson Adams Lincoln 40 acres Freedmen's Bureau bit

Emancipation Day

v t e

Economic[edit] Perhaps the most immediate business consequence of the decision was to help trigger the Panic of 1857. Economist Charles Calomiris and historian Larry Schweikart discovered that uncertainty about whether the entire West would suddenly become either slave territory or engulfed in combat like "Bleeding Kansas", immediately gripped the markets. The east–west railroads collapsed immediately (although north–south-running lines were unaffected), causing, in turn, the near-collapse of several large banks and the runs that ensued. What followed these runs has been called the Panic of 1857
Panic of 1857
and it differed sharply from the Panic of 1837, in that its effects were almost exclusively confined to the North. Calomiris and Schweikart found this resulted from the South's superior system of branch banking (as opposed to the North's unit banking system), in which the transmission of the panic was minor due to the diversification of the southern branch banking systems. Information moved reliably among the branch banks, whereas in the North, the unit banks (competitors) seldom shared such vital information.[29] Political[edit] The decision was hailed in Southern slaveholding society as a proper interpretation of the United States Constitution. According to Jefferson Davis, then a United States Senator from Mississippi, and later President of the Confederate States of America, the Dred Scott case was merely a question of "whether Cuffee should be kept in his normal condition or not".[30] At that time, "cuffee" was a term commonly used to describe a black person.[31] Prior to Dred Scott, Democratic Party politicians had sought repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and were finally successful in 1854 with the passage of the Kansas–Nebraska Act. This act permitted each newly admitted state south of the 40th parallel to decide whether to be a slave state or free state. Now, with Dred Scott, the Supreme Court under Taney sought to permit the unhindered expansion of slavery into the territories. The Dred Scott
Dred Scott
decision, then, represented a culmination of what many at that time considered a push to expand slavery. Southerners at the time, who had grown uncomfortable with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, argued that they had a right, under the federal constitution, to bring slaves into the territories, regardless of any decision by a territorial legislature on the subject. The Dred Scott
Dred Scott
decision seemed to endorse that view. The expansion of the territories and resulting admission of new states would mean a loss of political power for the North, as many of the new states would be admitted as slave states, and counting slaves as three-fifths of a person would add to the slave holding states' political representation in Congress. Although Taney believed that the decision represented a compromise that would settle the slavery question once and for all by transforming a contested political issue into a matter of settled law, it produced the opposite result. It strengthened Northern opposition to slavery, divided the Democratic Party on sectional lines, encouraged secessionist elements among Southern supporters of slavery to make bolder demands, and strengthened the Republican Party. Reaction[edit]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Opponents of slavery fiercely attacked the Dred Scott
Dred Scott
decision. The Evening Journal of Albany, New York, combined two themes and denounced the decision as both an offense to the principles of liberty on which the nation was founded, and a victory for slave states over the free states:[32]

The three hundred and forty-seven thousand five hundred and twenty-five Slaveholders in the Republic, accomplished day before yesterday a great success — as shallow men estimate success. They converted the Supreme Court of Law and Equity of the United States of America into a propagandist of human Slavery. Fatal day for a judiciary made reputable throughout the world, and reliable to all in this nation, by the learning and the virtues of Jay, Rutledge, Ellsworth, Marshall and Story! The conspiracy is nearly completed. The Legislation of the Republic is in the hands of this handful of Slaveholders. The United States Senate assures it to them. The Executive power of the Government is theirs. Buchanan took the oath of fealty to them on the steps of the Capitol last Wednesday. The body which gives the supreme law of the land, has just acceded to their demands, and dared to declare that under the charter of the Nation, men of African descent are not citizens of the United States and can not be — that the Ordinance of 1787 was void — that human Slavery
is not a local thing, but pursues its victims to free soil, clings to them wherever they go, and returns with them — that the American Congress has no power to prevent the enslavement of men in the National Territories — that the inhabitants themselves of the Territories have no power to exclude human bondage from their midst — and that men of color can not be suitors for justice in the Courts of the United States!

That editorial ended on a martial note:

All who love Republican institutions and who hate Aristocracy, compact yourselves together for the struggle which threatens your liberty and will test your manhood!

Many abolitionists and some supporters of slavery believed that Taney was prepared to rule, as soon as the issue was presented in a subsequent case, as for instance, Lemmon v. New York, that the states had no power to prohibit slavery within their borders and that state laws providing for the emancipation of slaves brought into their territory or forbidding the institution of slavery were likewise unconstitutional. Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln
stressed this danger during his famous "House Divided" speech at Springfield, Illinois, on June 16, 1858:

Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits ... We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.

That fear of the next Dred Scott
Dred Scott
decision shocked many in the North who had been content to accept slavery as long as it was confined within its then present borders. It also put the Northern Democrats, such as Stephen A. Douglas, in a difficult position. The Northern wing of the Democratic Party had supported the Kansas–Nebraska Act
Kansas–Nebraska Act
of 1854 under the banner of popular sovereignty. They argued that even if Congress did not bar the expansion of slavery into those territories, the residents of those territories could prohibit it by territorial legislation. The Dred Scott
Dred Scott
decision squarely stated that they could not exercise such prohibition, even though, strictly speaking, that issue was not before the Court. Without challenging the Court's decision directly, Douglas attempted to overcome that obstacle by creating his Freeport Doctrine. Douglas insisted that, even if a territory could not bar slavery outright, the institution could not take root without local police regulations to protect it and a territory could refuse to pass such local support. This doctrine was wholly unacceptable to Southern Democrats, who reached a different conclusion from the same premise. They argued that if hostile territorial governments could obstruct their right to bring their slaves into a territory by refusing to protect that right, then Congress must intervene to pass a federal slave code for all the territories. They often coupled this position with threats to secede if Congress did not comply. At the same time, Democrats characterized Republicans as lawless rebels, provoking disunion by their unwillingness to accept the Supreme Court's decision as the law of the land. Many Northern opponents of slavery offered a legalistic argument for refusing to recognize the Dred Scott
Dred Scott
decision as binding. As they noted, the Court's decision began with the proposition that the federal courts did not have jurisdiction to hear Scott's case because he was not a citizen of the State of Missouri. Therefore, so the opponents argued, the remainder of the decision concerning the Missouri Compromise
Missouri Compromise
was unnecessary (i.e., beyond the Court's power to decide) and therefore a passing remark rather than an authoritative interpretation of the law (i.e., obiter dictum). Douglas attacked this position in the Lincoln–Douglas debates:

Mr. Lincoln goes for a warfare upon the Supreme Court of the United States, because of their judicial decision in the Dred Scott
Dred Scott
case. I yield obedience to the decisions in that court — to the final determination of the highest judicial tribunal known to our constitution.

Democrats had previously refused to accept the Court's interpretation of the Constitution as permanently binding. During the Jackson administration, Roger B. Taney, working as Attorney General, wrote :

Whatever may be the force of the decision of the Supreme Court in binding the parties and settling their rights in the particular case before them, I am not prepared to admit that a construction given to the constitution by the Supreme Court in deciding any one or more cases fixes of itself irrevokably [sic] and permanently its construction in that particular and binds the states and the Legislative and executive branches of the General government, forever afterwards to conform to it and adopt it in every other case as the true reading of the instrument although all of them may unite in believing it erroneous.[33]

Southern supporters of slavery claimed that the Dred Scott
Dred Scott
decision was essential to the preservation of the union. As the Richmond Enquirer stated:

Thus has a politico-legal question, involving others of deep import, been decided emphatically in favor of the advocates and supporters of the Constitution and the Union, the equality of the States and the rights of the South, in contradistinction to and in repudiation of the diabolical doctrines inculcated by factionists and fanatics; and that too by a tribunal of jurists, as learned, impartial and unprejudiced as perhaps the world has ever seen. A prize, for which the athletes of the nation have often wrestled in the halls of Congress, has been awarded at last, by the proper umpire, to those who have justly won it. The "nation" has achieved a triumph, "sectionalism" has been rebuked, and abolitionism has been staggered and stunned. Another supporting pillar has been added to our institutions; the assailants of the South and enemies of the Union have been driven from their point d'appui; a patriotic principle has been pronounced; a great, national, conservative, union saving sentiment has been proclaimed.

While some supporters of slavery treated the decision as a vindication of their rights within the union, others treated it as merely a step to spreading slavery throughout the nation, as the Republicans claimed. Convinced that any restrictions on their right to own slaves and to take them anywhere they chose were unlawful, they boasted that the coming decade would see slave auctions on Boston Common. These Southern radicals were ready to split the Democratic Party and — as events showed — the nation on that principle. Frederick Douglass, a prominent African-American abolitionist who thought the decision unconstitutional and the Chief Justice's reasoning contrary to the founders' vision, prophesied that political conflict could not be avoided:

The highest authority has spoken. The voice of the Supreme Court has gone out over the troubled waves of the National Conscience ... [But] my hopes were never brighter than now. I have no fear that the National Conscience will be put to sleep by such an open, glaring, and scandalous tissue of lies ...[34]

The Scott family's fate[edit] Irene Emerson had moved to Massachusetts in 1850 and married Calvin C. Chaffee, a doctor and abolitionist who was elected to Congress on the Know Nothing
Know Nothing
and Republican tickets. Following the Supreme Court ruling, proslavery newspapers attacked Chaffee as a hypocrite. Chaffee protested that Dred Scott
Dred Scott
belonged to his brother-in law and that he had nothing to do with Scott's enslavement.[19] Nevertheless, the Chaffees executed a deed transferring the Scott family to Taylor Blow, son of Scott's former owner Peter Blow. Field suggested the transfer to Chaffee as the most convenient way of freeing Scott, as Missouri law required manumitters to appear in person before the Court.[19] Taylor Blow filed the manumission papers with Judge Hamilton on May 26, 1857. The emancipation of Dred Scott
Dred Scott
and his family was national news and was celebrated in northern cities. Scott worked as a porter in a hotel in St. Louis, where he was a minor celebrity. His wife took in laundry. Dred Scott
Dred Scott
died of tuberculosis only 18 months after attaining freedom, on November 7, 1858. Harriet died on June 17, 1876.[12] Sanford as defendant[edit] When the case was filed, the two sides agreed on a statement of facts that claimed Scott had been sold by Dr. Emerson to John Sanford. However, this was a legal fiction. Dr. Emerson had died in 1843, and Dred Scott
Dred Scott
had filed his 1847 suit against Irene Emerson. There is no record of Dred Scott's transfer to Sanford, or of his transfer back to Irene Chaffee. John Sanford died shortly before Scott's manumission, but Scott is not listed in the probate records of Sanford's estate.[18] Nor was Sanford acting as Dr. Emerson's executor, as he was never appointed by a probate court, and the Emerson estate had already been settled by the time the federal case was filed.[5] Because of the murky circumstances surrounding ownership, it has been suggested that the parties to Dred Scott
Dred Scott
v. Sandford contrived to create a test case.[13][18][19] Mrs. Emerson's remarriage to an abolitionist Congressman seemed suspicious to contemporaries, and Sanford seemed to be a front who allowed himself to be sued despite not actually being Scott's owner. However, Sanford had been involved in the case since 1847, before his sister married Chaffee. He had secured counsel for his sister in the state case, and he engaged the same lawyer for his own defense in the federal case.[13] Sanford also consented to be represented by genuine pro-slavery advocates before the Supreme Court, rather than putting up a token defense. Later references[edit] Justice John Marshall
John Marshall
Harlan was the lone dissenting vote in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which declared racial segregation constitutional and created the concept of "separate but equal". In his dissent, Harlan wrote that the majority's opinion would "prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott case."[35] Charles Evans Hughes, writing in 1927 on the Supreme Court's history, described Dred Scott
Dred Scott
v. Sandford as a "self-inflicted wound" from which the Court would not recover for over a decade.[36][37] In a memo to Justice Robert H. Jackson
Robert H. Jackson
in 1952 (for whom he was clerking at the time) on the subject of Brown v. Board of Education, future Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
William H. Rehnquist
wrote that "Scott v. Sandford was the result of Taney's effort to protect slaveholders from legislative interference."[38] Justice Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia
made the comparison between Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and Dred Scott
Dred Scott
in an effort to see Roe v. Wade overturned:

Dred Scott... rested upon the concept of "substantive due process" that the Court praises and employs today. Indeed, Dred Scott
Dred Scott
was very possibly the first application of substantive due process in the Supreme Court, the original precedent for... Roe v. Wade.[39]

Scalia noted that the Dred Scott
Dred Scott
decision, written and championed by Taney, left the justice's reputation irrevocably tarnished. Taney, while attempting to end the disruptive question of the future of slavery, wrote a decision that aggravated sectional tensions and was considered to contribute to the American Civil War.[40] Chief Justice John Roberts
John Roberts
compared Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges
(2015) to the Dred Scott
Dred Scott
case, as another example of trying to settle a contentious issue through a ruling that went beyond the scope of the Constitution.[41] Legacy[edit]

1977: The Scotts' great-grandson, John A. Madison, Jr., an attorney, gave the invocation at the ceremony at the Old Courthouse (St. Louis) in St. Louis, a National Historic Landmark, for the dedication of a National Historic Marker commemorating the Scotts' case tried there.[42] 2000: Harriet and Dred Scott's petition papers in their freedom suit were displayed at the main branch of the St. Louis Public Library, following discovery of more than 300 freedom suits in the archives of the U.S. circuit court.[43] 2006: A new historic plaque was erected at the Old Courthouse to honor the active roles of both Dred and Harriet Scott in their freedom suit and the case's significance in U.S. history.[44]

See also[edit]

American slave court cases List of United States Supreme Court
United States Supreme Court
cases, volume 60 List of United States Supreme Court
United States Supreme Court
cases Origins of the American Civil War Privileges and Immunities Clause Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind United States labor law


^ a b While the name of the Supreme Court case is Scott vs. Sandford, the respondent's surname was actually "Sanford". A clerk misspelled the name, and the court never corrected the error. Vishneski, John (1988). "What the Court Decided in Dred Scott
Dred Scott
v. Sandford". The American Journal of Legal History. Temple University. 32 (4): 373–390. doi:10.2307/845743. JSTOR 845743.  ^ "Introduction to the court opinion on the Dredd Scott case". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 2015-07-16.  ^ a b "Remarks of the Chief Justice". Supreme Court of the United States. March 21, 2003. Retrieved 2016-03-25.  ^ Frederic D. Schwarz Archived 2008-12-03 at the Wayback Machine. "The Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Decision", American Heritage, February/March 2007. ^ a b c d e f g h Finkelman, Paul (2007). "Scott v. Sandford: The Court's Most Dreadful Case and How it Changed History" (PDF). Chicago-Kent Law Review. 82 (3): 3–48.  ^ D. R. Tarr; A. O'Connor, eds. (2003). "Legislation declared unconstitutional". Congress A to Z (4th ed.). Washington: CQ Press. doi:10.4135/9781483302768.n191. Archived from the original on November 9, 2015.  ^ Bernard Schwartz (1997). A Book of Legal Lists : The Best and Worst in American Law. Oxford UP. p. 70.  ^ Junius P. Rodriguez (2007). Slavery
in the United States: A Social, Political, and Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 1.  ^ David Konig; et al. (2010). The Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Case: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Race and Law. Ohio UP. p. 213.  ^ Ethan Greenberg (2010). Dred Scott
Dred Scott
and the Dangers of a Political Court. Lexington Books. p. 6.  ^ Earl M. Maltz, Dred Scott
Dred Scott
and the Politics of Slavery
(2007) ^ a b c d e f g h "Missouri's Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Case, 1846-1857". Missouri Digital Heritage: African American HIstory Initiative. Retrieved 15 July 2015.  ^ a b c Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics (2001) ^ 1 Mo. 472, 475 (Mo. 1824). ^ 4 Mo. 350 (Mo. 1836). Rachel is remarkable as its fact pattern was on point for Scott's case. Rachel had been a female slave taken into the free Wisconsin Territory by her owner, who was an army officer. In Rachel, the Supreme Court of Missouri
Supreme Court of Missouri
held she was free as a consequence of having been taken by her master into a free jurisdiction. ^ Ehrlich, Walter (2007). They Have No Rights: Dred Scott's Struggle for Freedom. Applewood Books.  ^ Scott v. Emerson, 15 Mo. 576, 586 (Mo. 1852) Archived 2013-12-13 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved August 20, 2012. ^ a b c Ehrlich, Walter (September 1968). "Was the Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Case Valid?". The Journal of American History. Organization of American Historians. 55 (2): 256–265. JSTOR 1899556.  ^ a b c d Hardy, David T. (2012). "Dred Scott, John San(d)ford, and the Case for Collusion" (PDF). Northern Kentucky Law Review. 41 (1). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-10-10.  ^ Maltz, Earl M. (2007). Dred Scott
Dred Scott
and the politics of slavery. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. p. 115. ISBN 0-7006-1502-4.  ^ Faragher, John Mack; et al. (2005). Out of Many: A History of the American People (Revised Printing (4th Ed) ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall. p. 388. ISBN 0-13-195130-0.  ^ Baker, Jean H. (2004). James Buchanan: The American Presidents Series: The 15th President, 1857-1861. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-8050-6946-4.  ^ "James Buchanan: Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989". Bartleby.com. Retrieved 2012-07-26.  ^ "C K Law Review" (PDF). cklawreview.com. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-12-03.  ^ Alexander Bickel, School desegregation cases and legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment in the 39th Congress: Internal Memorandum for Justice Felix Frankfurter, The Felix Frankfurter Papers, Part II: United States Supreme Court, Case Files of Opinions and Memoranda, October Terms 1953-1961 ^ See Antonin Scalia, Constitutional Interpretation the Old Fashioned Way (March 14, 2005). ^ Abraham Lincoln's Speech on the Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Decision, June 26, 1857 Archived September 8, 2002, at the Wayback Machine.. ^ Champion of Civil Rights: Judge John Minor Wisdom. Southern Biography Series: LSU Press, 2009, p 24. https://books.google.com/books?id=atfIkRdwQ9kC&pg=PA24&dq=%22louisiana%22+%22george+mathews%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%20%22george%20mathews%22&f=false Retrieved December 4, 2012. ^ Charles Calomiris and Larry Schweikart, "The Panic of 1857: Origins, Transmission, Containment," Journal of Economic History, LI, December 1990, pp. 807–34. ^ Speech to the United States Senate, May 7, 1860 ^ Blassingame, John W. (15 September 2008). "Black New Orleans, 1860-1880". University of Chicago Press. Retrieved 8 August 2017 – via Google Books.  ^ Benson, Lloyd (editor). "The Issue Forced Upon Us". Secession Era Editorials Project. Furman University. Retrieved 2008-06-17. CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link) ^ Don E. Fehrenbacher
Don E. Fehrenbacher
(1978/2001), The Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics, reprint, New York: Oxford, Part 3, "Consequences and Echoes", Chapter 18, "The Judges Judged", p. 441; unpublished opinion, transcript in Carl B. Swisher Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress. ^ Dred Scott
Dred Scott
vs. Sandford: A Brief History with Documents — Google Boeken.  ^ Fehrenbacher, p. 580. ^ "Introduction to the court opinion on the Dred Scott
Dred Scott
case". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 2015-07-16.  ^ "Remarks of the Chief Justice". Supreme Court of the United States. March 21, 2003. Retrieved 2007-11-22.  ^ Rehnquist, William. "A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases" Archived 2008-09-21 at the Wayback Machine.. ^ Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). FindLaw. ^ Carey, Patrick W. (April 2002). "Political Atheism: Dred Scott, Roger Brooke Taney, and Orestes A. Brownson". The Catholic Historical Review. The Catholic University of America Press. 88 (2): 207–229. doi:10.1353/cat.2002.0072. ISSN 1534-0708.  (requires subscription) ^ Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (1992). ^ Adam Arenson, " Dred Scott
Dred Scott
versus the Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Case", The Dred Scott Case: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Race and Law, Ohio University Press, 2010, p.36 ^ Arenson (2010), Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Case, p. 38 ^ Arenson (2010), Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Case, p. 39

Further reading[edit]

Dennis-Jonathan Mann & Kai Purnhagen: The Nature of Union Citizenship between Autonomy and Dependency on (Member) State Citizenship — A Comparative Analysis of the Rottmann Ruling, or: How to Avoid a European Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Decision?, in: 29:3 Wisconsin International Law Journal (WILJ), (Fall 2011), pp. 484–533 (PDF). Fehenbacher, Don E., The Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics New York: Oxford (1978) [winner of Pulitzer Prize for History]. Fehrenbacher, Don E. Slavery, Law, and Politics: The Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Case in Historical Perspective (1981) [abridged version of The Dred Scott Case]. Konig, David Thomas, Paul Finkelman, and Christopher Alan Bracey, eds. The "Dred Scott" Case: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Race and Law (Ohio University Press; 2010) 272 pages; essays by scholars on the history of the case and its afterlife in American law and society. Potter, David M. The Impending Crisis, 1848–1861 (1976) pp 267–96. VanderVelde, Lea. Mrs. Dred Scott: A Life on Slavery's Frontier (Oxford University press, 2009) 480 pp. Swain, Gwenyth (2004). Dred and Harriet Scott: A Family's Struggle for Freedom. Saint Paul, MN: Borealis Books. ISBN 978-0-87351-482-8.  Tushnet, Mark (2008). I Dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Boston: Beacon Press. pp. 31–44. ISBN 978-0-8070-0036-6.  Listen to: American Pendulum II — http://one.npr.org/i/555247859:555247861

External links[edit]

Texts on Wikisource:

Dred Scott
Dred Scott
v. Sandford " Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Case". New International Encyclopedia. 1905.  " Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Case". Collier's New Encyclopedia. 1921. 

Text of Dred Scott
Dred Scott
v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) is available from:  Cornell  Findlaw  Justia  Oyez  OpenJurist  Primary documents and bibliography about the Dred Scott
Dred Scott
case, from the Library of Congress " Dred Scott
Dred Scott
decision", Encyclopædia Britannica 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 17 December 2006. www.yowebsite.com Gregory J. Wallance, " Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Decision: The Lawsuit That Started The Civil War", History.net, originally in Civil War Times Magazine, March/April 2006 Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, National Park Service Infography about the Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Case The Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Case Collection, Washington University in St. Louis Report of the Brown University Steering Committee on Slavery
and Justice Dred Scott
Dred Scott
case articles from William Lloyd Garrison's abolitionist newspaper The Liberator "Supreme Court Landmark Case Dred Scott
Dred Scott
v. Sandford" from C-SPAN's Landmark Cases: Historic Supreme Court Decisions Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
and the Opinions of the Judges Thereof, in the Case of Dred Scott
Dred Scott
Versus John F.A. Sandford. December Term, 1856 via Google Books

v t e

Missouri in the American Civil War


Governor refuses to furnish quota of militia to the United States Seizure of United States Arsenal at Liberty Seizure of United States ordnance stores at Kansas City Capture of Camp Jackson Convention between Brig. Gen. William S. Harney, U. S. Army, and Maj. Gen. Sterling Price, Missouri State Guard Engagement at Boonville Skirmish at Cole Camp Engagement near Carthage Skirmish at Athens Martial law declared in St. Louis Battle of Wilson's Creek Action at Dry Wood Creek Siege of Lexington Action at Blue Mills Landing Destruction of Osceola Operations about Ironton and Fredericktown Action at Springfield Engagement at Belmont Missouri admitted as a member of the Confederate States of America Brig. Gen. John M. Schofield, U. S. Army, assumes command of the Missouri Militia Skirmish at Blackwater Creek Action at Mount Zion Church


Action at Roan's Tan-Yard Operations at New Madrid Brig. Gen. Mosby M. Parsons, Mo. S. G., assumes command of the Missouri State Guard Action at Moore's Mill Action at Kirksville Action at Independence Action at Lone Jack Engagement at Newtonia Skirmish at Island Mound Action at Clark's Mill


Engagement at Springfield Engagement at Hartville Action at Cape Girardeau Skirmish at Chalk Bluff Enrolled Militia of Missouri placed under command of Maj. Gen. Schofield General Order No. 11 Shelby's raid in Arkansas and Missouri


Maj. Gen. Sterling Price, C. S. Army, assumes command of the expeditionary forces at Princeton, Ark. Price enters Missouri Affair at Centralia Attack on Fort Davidson Action at Glasgow Action at Lexington Action at the Little Blue Action at Independence Action at the Big Blue Engagement at Westport Engagement at the Marmiton Engagement at Newtonia


Negotiations for the surrender of the Confederate forces in the Trans- Mississippi
Department Gen. E. Kirby Smith, C. S. Army, surrenders troops in Trans- Mississippi


Confederate Union


St. Louis

Category Commons

v t e

American Civil War


Origins Issues

Timeline leading to the War Antebellum era Bleeding Kansas Border states Compromise of 1850 Dred Scott
Dred Scott
v. Sandford Lincoln-Douglas debates Missouri Compromise Popular sovereignty Secession States' rights President Lincoln's 75,000 volunteers


African Americans Cornerstone Speech Emancipation Proclamation Fugitive slave laws Plantations in the American South Slave Power Slavery
in the United States Treatment of slaves in the United States Uncle Tom's Cabin


Susan B. Anthony John Brown Frederick Douglass William Lloyd Garrison Elijah Parish Lovejoy J. Sella Martin Lysander Spooner George Luther Stearns Thaddeus Stevens Charles Sumner Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad

Combatants Theaters Campaigns Battles States


Union (USA)

Army Navy Marine Corps Revenue Cutter Service

Confederacy (CSA)

Army Navy Marine Corps


Eastern Western Lower Seaboard Trans-Mississippi Pacific Coast Union naval blockade

Major Campaigns

Anaconda Plan Blockade runners New Mexico Jackson's Valley Peninsula Northern Virginia Maryland Stones River Vicksburg Tullahoma Gettysburg Morgan's Raid Bristoe Knoxville Red River Overland Atlanta Valley 1864 Bermuda Hundred Richmond-Petersburg Franklin–Nashville Price's Raid Sherman's March Carolinas Appomattox

Major battles

Fort Sumter 1st Bull Run Wilson's Creek Fort Donelson Pea Ridge Hampton Roads Shiloh New Orleans Corinth Seven Pines Seven Days 2nd Bull Run Antietam Perryville Fredericksburg Stones River Chancellorsville Gettysburg Vicksburg Chickamauga Chattanooga Wilderness Spotsylvania Cold Harbor Atlanta Mobile Bay Franklin Nashville Five Forks

Involvement (by  state or territory)





R. H. Anderson Beauregard Bragg Buchanan Cooper Early Ewell Forrest Gorgas Hill Hood Jackson A. S. Johnston J. E. Johnston Lee Longstreet Morgan Mosby Price Semmes E. K. Smith Stuart Taylor Wheeler


Benjamin Bocock Breckinridge Davis Hunter Mallory Memminger Seddon Stephens



Anderson Buell Burnside Butler Du Pont Farragut Foote Frémont Grant Halleck Hooker Hunt McClellan McDowell Meade Meigs Ord Pope D. D. Porter Rosecrans Scott Sheridan Sherman Thomas


Adams Chase Ericsson Hamlin Lincoln Pinkerton Seward Stanton Stevens Wade Welles


U.S. Constitution

Reconstruction amendments

13th Amendment 14th Amendment 15th Amendment


Claims Brooks–Baxter War Carpetbaggers Colfax Riot of 1873 Eufaula Riot of 1874 Freedmen's Bureau Freedman's Savings Bank Impeachment of Andrew Johnson Kirk-Holden War Knights of the White Camelia Ku Klux Klan Memphis Riot of 1866 Meridian Riot of 1871 New Orleans
New Orleans
Riot of 1866 Pulaski (Tennessee) Riot of 1867 Reconstruction acts

Habeas Corpus Act 1867 Enforcement Act of 1870 Enforcement Act of February 1871 Enforcement Act of April 1871

Reconstruction treaties

Indian Council at Fort Smith

Red Shirts Redeemers Confederate refugees


Scalawags South Carolina riots of 1876 Southern Claims Commission Homestead acts

Southern Homestead Act of 1866 Timber Culture Act
Timber Culture Act
of 1873

White League



Centennial Civil War Discovery Trail Civil War Roundtables Civil War Trails Program Civil War Trust Confederate History Month Confederate monuments and memorials Historical reenactment Robert E. Lee
Robert E. Lee


Black Codes Jim Crow

Lost Cause mythology Modern display of the Confederate flag Sons of Confederate Veterans Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War Southern Historical Society United Daughters of the Confederacy

Monuments and memorials


List of Union Civil War monuments and memorials List of memorials to the Grand Army of the Republic Memorials to Abraham Lincoln


List of Confederate monuments and memorials Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials List of memorials to Robert E. Lee List of memorials to Jefferson Davis Annapolis

Roger B. Taney
Roger B. Taney


Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument Confederate Women's Monument Roger B. Taney
Roger B. Taney
Monument Robert E. Lee
Robert E. Lee
and Stonewall Jackson
Stonewall Jackson

Durham, North Carolina

Robert E. Lee
Robert E. Lee

New Orleans

Battle of Liberty
Battle of Liberty
Place Monument Jefferson Davis
Jefferson Davis
Monument General Beauregard Equestrian Statue Robert E. Lee
Robert E. Lee


Confederate Memorial Day Ladies' memorial associations U.S. Memorial Day U.S. national cemeteries


1913 Gettysburg Reunion Confederate Veteran Grand Army of the Republic Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the U.S. Old soldiers' homes Southern Cross of Honor United Confederate Veterans

Related topics

Related topics


Arms Campaign Medal Cavalry Confederate Home Guard Confederate railroads Confederate Revolving Cannon Field artillery Medal of Honor recipients Medicine Leadership Naval battles Official Records Partisan rangers POW camps Rations Signal Corps Turning point Union corps badges U.S. Balloon Corps U.S. Home Guard U.S. Military Railroad


Committee on the Conduct of the War Confederate States Presidential Election of 1861 Confiscation Act of 1861 Confiscation Act of 1862 Copperheads Emancipation Proclamation Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 Hampton Roads Conference National Union Party Radical Republicans Trent Affair Union leagues U.S. Presidential Election of 1864 War Democrats

Other topics

Bibliography Confederate war finance

Confederate States dollar


Confederate Secret Service

Great Revival of 1863 Music Naming the war Native Americans

Cherokee Choctaw

New York City Gold Hoax of 1864 New York City Riot of 1863 Photographers Richmond Riot of 1863 Sexuality Supreme Court cases Tokens U.S. Sanitar