The people involved in the Dred Scott decision fall into five groups: the enslaved Scott family who sued for their freedom, the Emerson-Sanford family who claimed ownership, the Blow family and lawyers who kept the suit alive, the advocates who argued at the Supreme Court, and the nine justices who decided the case 7–2 in 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote the majority opinion; Justices Benjamin Robbins Curtis and John McLean dissented.1Oyez. Dred Scott v. Sandford
Dred and Harriet Scott, the Plaintiffs
Dred Scott was an enslaved man, roughly fifty years old when the case began. His owner, the military surgeon Dr. John Emerson, had taken him to Fort Armstrong in Illinois and later to Fort Snelling in the free Wisconsin Territory. Scott lived on free soil for nearly nine years.2U.S. National Park Service. Dred Scott Under the “once free, always free” doctrine that Missouri courts had honored for decades, that residence gave him grounds to argue his enslavement had ended.3Gateway Arch National Park. The Dred Scott Case
Harriet Robinson Scott was a co-plaintiff, not a bystander. Born enslaved in Virginia around 1815, she was brought to Fort Snelling by Indian agent Lawrence Taliaferro, who performed her civil marriage to Dred in 1836 or 1837 and then transferred her to Dr. Emerson.4U.S. National Park Service. Harriet Robinson Scott The couple had two daughters, Eliza and Lizzie. On April 6, 1846, Dred and Harriet each filed separate petitions for freedom in the St. Louis Circuit Court.5Missouri Digital Heritage. Missouri’s Dred Scott Case
Irene Emerson and John Sanford, the Defendants
Dr. John Emerson died in 1843, and ownership of the Scotts passed to his widow, Irene Emerson. She hired the family out to other households and kept most of their wages.3Gateway Arch National Park. The Dred Scott Case Dred offered to buy his family’s freedom for $300; Irene refused, which left litigation as the only route.6PBS. Dred Scott’s Fight for Freedom She was the named defendant in the Missouri state suits.
When the case moved into federal court, the defendant became John Sanford, Irene Emerson’s brother, who managed the family’s affairs and lived in New York. His residence in a different state from the Scotts made federal jurisdiction possible under the diverse-citizenship clause.7U.S. National Park Service. Dred Scott Chronology A clerk misspelled his surname as “Sandford,” and the misspelling remains in the case title.
The Blow Family, Backers of the Suit
Dred Scott had grown up on the Virginia and Alabama plantation of Peter Blow, alongside the Blow children. After Peter Blow died and Scott was sold to Dr. Emerson, the Blow sons Henry and Taylor stayed in contact with him. When the freedom suits began, both brothers gave depositions and provided the financial and moral support that kept the litigation moving.8American Battlefield Trust. Dred Scott and the Blow Family Because Scott was illiterate and had no money of his own, this backing was essential. Antislavery friends in St. Louis also encouraged the suit, but the Blow family gave it staying power.
The Attorneys on Both Sides
Roswell Field, Who Moved the Case to Federal Court
After the Missouri Supreme Court reversed a lower-court victory for the Scotts in March 1852, Charles Edmund LaBeaume, who had been hiring the Scotts since 1851, brought the matter to St. Louis attorney Roswell M. Field. Field took the case without charge and refiled it in federal court under diverse citizenship, aiming to force the Supreme Court to decide whether residence in free territory permanently freed an enslaved person.5Missouri Digital Heritage. Missouri’s Dred Scott Case
Montgomery Blair and George Ticknor Curtis, for the Scotts
At the Supreme Court, Montgomery Blair and George Ticknor Curtis argued for the Scotts.1Oyez. Dred Scott v. Sandford Blair had served as a U.S. district attorney in Missouri, as mayor of St. Louis, and as a judge before becoming the first solicitor general for the U.S. Court of Claims. Curtis was a constitutional scholar from Massachusetts. They argued that people of African descent could be citizens with standing to sue in federal court, and that Congress had the power to prohibit slavery in the territories.
Reverdy Johnson and Henry S. Geyer, for Sanford
Reverdy Johnson, a former U.S. Attorney General under President Zachary Taylor, and Henry S. Geyer, a sitting U.S. Senator from Missouri, represented the defense. Their argument attacked jurisdiction first: because Scott was of African descent, they contended, he was not a citizen and could not sue in federal court. They also argued that enslaved people were property protected by the Fifth Amendment, and that Congress had no authority to ban slavery in federal territories.
The Nine Justices and How They Voted
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote the majority opinion in a 7–2 decision against the Scotts.1Oyez. Dred Scott v. Sandford The six justices who joined him were James M. Wayne, John Catron, Peter V. Daniel, Samuel Nelson, Robert C. Grier, and John A. Campbell.9Ballotpedia. Dred Scott v. Sandford Each wrote or joined separate concurring opinions, and their reasoning varied; Nelson concurred on narrower grounds than Taney’s sweeping opinion.
Taney’s opinion held that no person of African descent could be a United States citizen, that Scott therefore had no right to sue, that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional, and that enslaved people were property protected by the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.10Justia. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)
Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis dissented in detail. He argued that the majority had misread the Constitution and the historical record, pointing out that free Black men had been citizens in several states at the time of the founding, which contradicted Taney’s claim that the framers viewed all people of African descent as ineligible for citizenship. Curtis also criticized Taney for ruling on the merits after concluding the Court lacked jurisdiction, calling that step legally unnecessary and improper.1Oyez. Dred Scott v. Sandford
Justice John McLean dissented separately. He argued that slavery was a local institution that existed only where local law created it, and that once a slaveholder voluntarily brought an enslaved person into a jurisdiction that prohibited slavery, the presumption shifted in favor of freedom regardless of race. He noted that Missouri courts themselves had honored that principle for twenty-eight years before reversing course in Scott’s case, and he maintained that Congress plainly had the power to prohibit slavery in the territories under Article IV.
What Happened to the Scotts After the Ruling
The Supreme Court ruling defeated the Scotts in law, but their freedom came through another route. Irene Emerson had remarried in 1850, and her new husband was Calvin C. Chaffee, a Massachusetts congressman who publicly opposed slavery. Once the decision made national headlines, the Scotts were transferred to Taylor Blow, the son of Dred’s original owner, who purchased and freed the entire family on May 26, 1857.11National Archives. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Dred Scott died of tuberculosis on September 17, 1858, barely a year after gaining his freedom. Harriet Scott lived through the Civil War and remained in St. Louis with her two daughters and grandchildren, all of whom had been born into freedom. She died on June 17, 1876.