nstrument to the citizen (Taney, 2009, p. 1)?" The Court answered that Scott did not have standing under the Constitution as a citizen, thus returning him and his family to slavery. The report traces the history and evolution of the case and delineates its impact upon American society. It argues that the decision was a major factor in facilitating the rise of the Civil War.
Dred Scott was born into slavery in Virginia and moved with his master to St. Louis, Missouri, where he was sold in 1833 to Dr. John Emerson, an Army surgeon. Emerson's career in the Army took both men to the free state of Illinois and to free Wisconsin territory, among other places (Hall, 1992). While living in Wisconsin, Scott married Harried Robinson and Emerson purchased her. While on a tour of duty in Louisiana in 1838, Dr. Emerson married a woman named Eliza Irene Sanford, who became the de facto co-owner of all Emerson's property, including his slaves. Sanford's family lived in St. Louis. As Hall (1992) points out, these details are of significance in determining the status of Dred Scott and his wife, Harriet, because the separate state laws in the 1800s either supported slavery or rejected it, creating a situation in which a slave like Scott transported to and residing in a free state would be assumed to been emancipated , albeit perhaps involuntarily on the part of his or her owner (Foner, 1998).
What is particularly compelling about this case is that it speaks, said Foner (1998), directly to the question of the extent to which the U.S. Constitution identifies citizens. In 1790, Congress passed the Naturalization Act. It legislatively defined American nationality, restricting the process of becoming a citizen to free white people. At the same time, the Constitution did not in and of itself identify slaves as possessing the rights of citizens (Foner, 1998). It was on this issue - that of citizenship status - that the Dred Scott case wou...