Dred Scott Bibliography Example

For other uses, see Dred Scott (disambiguation).

Dred Scott (c. 1799 – September 17, 1858) was an enslavedAfrican American man in the United States who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom and that of his wife and their two daughters in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as the "Dred Scott Decision". Scott claimed that he and his wife should be granted their freedom because they had lived in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory for four years, where slavery was illegal. The United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, which the court ruled unconstitutional as it would "improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property".

While Chief JusticeRoger B. Taney had hoped to settle issues related to slavery and Congressional authority by this decision, it aroused public outrage, deepened sectional tensions between the northern and southern U.S. states, and hastened the eventual explosion of their differences into the American Civil War. President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and the post-Civil WarReconstruction Amendments—the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments—nullified the decision.


Circa 1799, Dred Scott was born into slavery in Southampton County, Virginia. It is not clear whether Dred was his given name or a shortened form of Etheldred.[2] In 1818, Peter Blow and his family took their six slaves to Alabama, where the family ran an unsuccessful farm in a location near Huntsville that is now occupied by Oakwood University.[3][4][5] The Blows gave up farming in 1830 and moved to St. Louis, Missouri, where they ran a boarding house.[6] Dred Scott was sold to Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon serving in the United States Army. After Scott learned he would be sold to Dr. Emerson and relocated to Rock Island, Illinois, he attempted to run away. His decision to do so was spurred by a distaste he had previously developed for Dr. Emerson. Scott was temporarily successful in his escape as he, much like many other runaway slaves during this time period, "never tried to distance his pursuers, but dodged around among his fellow slaves as long as possible." Eventually, he was captured in the "Lucas Swamps" of Missouri and taken back.[7] Blow died in 1832, and historians debate whether Scott was sold to Emerson before or after Blow's death. Some believe that Scott was sold in 1831, while others point to a number of slaves in Blow's estate who were sold to Emerson after Blow's death, including one with a name given as Sam, who may be the same person as Scott.[1]

As an army officer, Dr. Emerson moved frequently, taking Scott with him to each new army posting. In 1836, Emerson and Scott went to Fort Armstrong, in the free state of Illinois. In 1837, Emerson took Scott to Fort Snelling, in what is now the state of Minnesota and was then in the free territory of Wisconsin. There, Scott met and married Harriet Robinson, a slave owned by Lawrence Taliaferro. The marriage was formalized in a civil ceremony presided over by Taliaferro, who was a justice of the peace. Since slave marriages had no legal sanction, supporters of Scott would later point to this ceremony as evidence that Scott was being treated as a free man. Nevertheless, Taliaferro transferred Harriet to Emerson, who treated the Scotts as his slaves.[6]

Emerson moved to Jefferson Barracks in 1837, leaving the Scott family behind and leasing them out to other officers. In February 1838, Emerson met and married Eliza Irene Sanford at Fort Jesup in Louisiana, whereupon he sent for the Scotts to join him. While on a steamboat on the Mississippi River, between the free state of Illinois and the Iowa district of Wisconsin Territory, Harriet Scott gave birth to their first child, whom they named Eliza after their mistress. They later had a daughter, Lizzie. Eventually, they would also have two sons, but neither survived past infancy.[6][8][self-published source]

The Emersons and Scotts returned to Missouri in 1840. 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 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, offering $300, about $8,000 in current value.[9] However, Irene Emerson refused, prompting Scott to resort to legal recourse.[10]

Dred Scott case[edit]

Main article: Dred Scott v. Sandford

Having failed to purchase his freedom, in 1846 Scott filed legal suit in St. Louis Circuit Court. Scott stood on solid legal ground, as Missouri precedent dating back to 1824 had held that slaves freed through prolonged residence in a free state would remain free when taken back to Missouri. The doctrine was known as "Once free, always free". Scott and his wife had resided for two years in free states and free territories, and his eldest daughter had been born on the Mississippi River, between a free state and a free territory.

Dred Scott was listed as the only plaintiff in the case, but his wife, Harriet, played a critical role, pushing him to pursue freedom on behalf of their family. She was a frequent churchgoer, and the pastor at her church in St. Louis (a well-known abolitionist) connected the Scotts to their first lawyer. The Scott children were around the age of ten at the time the case was originally filed, which was the age when younger slaves became more valuable assets for slave owners to sell. To avoid the family from breaking up, Harriet urged Dred to take action.[11]

The Scott v. Emerson case was tried in 1847 in the federal-state courthouse in St. Louis. Dred Scott's lawyer was originally Francis B. Murdoch and later Charles D. Drake. Because more than a year elapsed from the time of the initial petition filing until the trial, Drake moved away from St. Louis during that time. Samuel M. Bay tried the case in court.[12] The verdict went against Scott, as testimony that established his ownership by Mrs. Emerson was ruled to be hearsay. However, the judge called for a retrial, which was finally held in January 1850. This time, direct evidence was introduced that Emerson owned Scott, and the jury ruled in favor of Scott's freedom.

Irene Emerson appealed. In 1852, the Missouri Supreme Court struck down the lower court ruling, arguing that growing antislavery sentiment in the free states made it no longer necessary for Missouri to defer to the laws of free states.[13] In doing so, the court overturned 28 years of precedent in Missouri. Justice Hamilton R. Gamble, who was later appointed governor of the state, sharply disagreed with the majority decision and wrote a dissenting opinion.

In 1853, Scott again sued, this time under federal law. Irene Emerson had moved to Massachusetts, and Scott had been transferred to Irene Emerson's brother, John F. A. Sanford. Because Sanford was a citizen of New York, while Scott would be a citizen of Missouri if he were free, the Federal courts had diversity jurisdiction over the case.[14] After losing again in federal district court, they appealed to the United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford. (The name is spelled "Sandford" in the court decision due to a clerical error.)

On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion. Taney ruled that:

  • Any person descended from Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States, according to the Constitution.
  • The Ordinance of 1787 could not confer either freedom or citizenship within the Northwest Territory to non-white individuals.
  • The provisions of the Act of 1820, known as the Missouri Compromise, were voided as a legislative act, since the act exceeded the powers of Congress, insofar as it attempted to exclude slavery and impart freedom and citizenship to non-white persons in the northern part of the Louisiana Purchase.[15]

The Court had ruled that African Americans had no claim to freedom or citizenship. Since they were not citizens, they did not possess the legal standing to bring suit in a federal court. As slaves were private property, Congress did not have the power to regulate slavery in the territories and could not revoke a slave owner's rights based on where he lived. This decision nullified the essence of the Missouri Compromise, which divided territories into jurisdictions either free or slave. Speaking for the majority, Taney ruled that because Scott was simply considered the private property of his owners, he was subject to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibiting the taking of property from its owner "without due process".

The Scott decision increased tensions between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in both North and South, further pushing the country towards the brink of civil war. Ultimately, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution settled the issue of Black citizenship via Section 1 of that Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside ..."

Abolitionist aid to Scott's case[edit]

Scott's freedom suit before the state courts was backed financially by Peter Blow's children, who had turned against slavery in the decade since they sold Dred Scott. Henry Taylor Blow became a Republican Congressman after the Civil War, Charlotte Taylor Blow married the son of an abolitionist newspaper editor, and Martha Ella Blow married Charles D. Drake, one of Scott's lawyers who became a Republican Senator. Members of the Blow family signed as security for Scott's legal fees and secured the services of local lawyers. While the case was pending, Scott was leased out by the St. Louis County sheriff, who held the payments in escrow. In 1851, Scott was leased by Charles Edmund LaBeaume, whose sister had married into the Blow family.[6] Scott worked as a janitor at LaBeaume's law office, which was shared with Roswell Field.[16]

After the Missouri Supreme Court decision, the Blow family concluded that the case was hopeless and decided that they could no longer pay Scott's legal fees. Roswell Field agreed to represent Scott pro bono before the federal courts. Scott was represented before the U.S. Supreme Court by Montgomery Blair, an abolitionist who later joined Abraham Lincoln's cabinet as Postmaster General, and George Curtis, whose brother Benjamin sat on the Supreme Court and wrote one of the two dissents in Dred Scott v. Sandford.[6]

In 1850, Irene Emerson remarried and moved to Springfield, Massachusetts. Her new husband, Calvin C. Chaffee, was an abolitionist who was elected to the U.S. Congress in 1854. Chaffee was fiercely attacked by pro-slavery newspapers for his apparent hypocrisy in owning slaves. In response, Chaffee claimed that neither he nor Mrs. Chaffee even knew about the case until it was "noticed for trial" and wrote to Montgomery Blair, "my wife ... desires to know whether she has the legal power and right to emancipate the Dred Scott family."

The strange circumstances of the Dred Scott case raised suspicions at the time of collusion to create a test case. Abolitionist newspapers charged that slaveholders colluded to name a New Yorker as defendant, while pro-slavery newspapers charged collusion on the abolitionist side.[17] It was shown a century later that John Sanford never owned Dred Scott, nor did he serve as executor of Dr. Emerson's will.[16] It was unnecessary to find a New Yorker to secure diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts, as Irene Emerson Chaffee had become a resident of Massachusetts. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Roswell Field advised Dr. Chaffee that Mrs. Chaffee had full powers over Scott.[17] However, Sanford had been involved in the case since the beginning, as he'd secured a lawyer to defend Mrs. Emerson in the original state lawsuit, before she married Chaffee.[10]

Post-case freedom[edit]

Following the ruling, the Chaffees deeded the Scott family to Taylor Blow, who manumitted them on May 26, 1857. Scott worked as a porter in a St. Louis hotel, but his freedom was short-lived; he died from tuberculosis in September 1858.[18] He was survived by his wife and his two daughters.

Scott was originally interred in Wesleyan Cemetery in St. Louis. When this cemetery was closed nine years later, Taylor Blow transferred Scott's coffin to an unmarked plot in the nearby Catholic Calvary Cemetery, St. Louis, which permitted burial of non-Catholic slaves by Catholic owners.[19] A local tradition later developed of placing Lincoln pennies on top of Scott's gravestone for good luck.[19]

Harriet Scott was buried in Greenwood Cemetery in Hillsdale, Missouri. She outlived her husband by 18 years, dying on June 17, 1876.[6]

Prelude to Emancipation Proclamation[edit]

  • The newspaper coverage of the court ruling and the 10-year legal battle raised awareness of slavery in non-slave states. The arguments for freedom were later used by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. The harsh words of the decision built popular opinion and voter sentiment for his Emancipation Proclamation and the three constitutional amendments ratified shortly after the Civil War: the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments, abolishing slavery, granting former slaves citizenship, and conferring citizenship to anyone born in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (excluding those subject to a foreign power such as children of foreign ambassadors).[20]


  • One daughter, Eliza, married and had two sons. Her sister Lizzie never married but, following her sister's early death, helped raise her nephews. One of Eliza's sons died young, but the other married and has descendants, some of whom still live in St. Louis as of 2010.[21]
  • 1957, Scott's gravesite was rediscovered and flowers were put on it in a ceremony to mark the centennial of the case.[22]
  • 1977, the Scotts' great-grandson, John A. Madison, Jr., an attorney, gave the invocation at the ceremony at the Old Courthouse (St. Louis, Missouri) for the dedication of a National Historic Marker commemorating the Scotts' case.[22]
  • In 1997, Dred and Harriet Scott were inducted into the St. Louis Walk of Fame.[23]
  • 1999, a cenotaph was installed for Harriet Scott at her husband's grave to commemorate her role in seeking freedom for them and their children.[22]
  • 2001, Harriet and Dred Scott's petition papers 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 circuit court.[22]
  • 2006, Harriet Scott's gravesite was proven to be in Hillsdale, Missouri and a biography of her was published in 2009.[22]
  • 2006, a new historic plaque was erected at the Old Courthouse to honor the roles of both Dred and Harriet Scott in their freedom suit and its significance in U.S. history.[22]
  • May 9, 2012, Scott was inducted into the Hall of Famous Missourians; a bronze bust is displayed in the Missouri State Capitol Building.[24]
  • June 8, 2012, a bronze statue of Dred and Harriet Scott was erected outside of the Old Courthouse in downtown St. Louis, MO, the site where their case was originally heard.[25]
  • In 1971 the city of Bloomington, Minnesota dedicated the 48 acre Dred Scott Playfield at 10820 Bloomington Ferry Rd 55438. In July 2013, with the help of human rights activist, Frank White, the city of Bloomington installed four plaques teaching who Dred Scott was and the impact the Dred Scott Decision had on the abolishment of slavery.
  • March 6, 2017 — the 160th Anniversary of the Dred Scott Decision — on the steps of the Maryland State House next to a statue of Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, his great-great grand nephew Charlie Taney apologized on his behalf to Scott's great-great granddaughter Lynne Jackson and all African-Americans "for the terrible injustice of the Dred Scott decision."[26] During the ceremony, lines from the play A Man of His Time by Charlie Taney's daughter Kate Taney Billingsley regarding the decision were read.[27]

In popular culture[edit]

  • Shelia P. Moses and Bonnie Christensen, I, Dred Scott: A Fictional Slave Narrative Based on the Life and Legal Precedent of Dred Scott (2005)[22]
  • Mary E. Neighbour, Speak Right On: Dred Scott: A Novel (2006)[22]
  • Gregory J. Wallance, Two Men Before the Storm: Arba Crane's Recollection of Dred Scott and the Supreme Court Case That Started the Civil War (2006), novel[22]
  • In their 1997 album Chapter 2: World Domination, American hip hop group Three 6 Mafia allude to Dred Scott in the song "Spill My Blood" in the lyric "yes the consequences, are your choice, my dred."[28]
  • Dred Scott is mentioned in the song "Voice of the Voiceless" by American band Rage Against the Machine in their 1999 album The Battle of Los Angeles. The song is about Mumia Abu-Jamal who was convicted of killing a police officer. His supporters argue he received an unfair trial and Scott is referred to in the lyric "watch the decision of Dred Scott as it reverses."[29]
  • American hip hop group Little Brother relates their daily lives to Dred Scott in the song "Speed" with the lyric "take a rest stop cause my job got me slaving like I'm Dred Scott." The song is from their 2003 album The Listening.[30]

See also[edit]


  • Allen, Austin (2006). Origins of the Dred Scott Case: Jacksonian Jurisprudence and the Supreme Court, 1837-1857. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. ISBN 978-0-820326-53-5. 
  • Fehrenbacher, Don E. (1978). The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-195024-03-6. 
  • Shurtleff, Mark (2009). Am I Not a Man? The Dred Scott Story. Orem, UT: Valor Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-935546-00-9. 
  • Swain, Gwenyth (2004). Dred and Harriet Scott: A Family's Struggle for Freedom. Saint Paul, MN: Borealis Books. ISBN 978-0-873514-83-5. 
  • Tsesis, Alexander (2008). We Shall Overcome: A History of Civil Rights and the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300118-37-7. 
  • Ehrlich, Walter. They have no rights: Dred Scott's struggle for freedom. No. 9. Praeger Pub Text, 1979.
  • Swain, Gwenyth. Dred and Harriet Scott: A Family's Struggle for Freedom. Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2004.


  1. ^ abFor a longer discussion, see Ehrlich, 1979. chapter 1, or more recently see, Swain, 2004. p91
  2. ^VanderVelde, Lea (2009-01-20). Mrs. Dred Scott: A Life on Slavery's Frontier. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 9780199710645. 
  3. ^http://www.deepfriedkudzu.com/2011/02/dred-scott-and-oakwood-university.html[full citation needed]
  4. ^http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/04/a_catalyst_for_civil_war_after.html[full citation needed]
  5. ^"Archived copy". Archived from the original on January 19, 2015. Retrieved January 19, 2015. [full citation needed]
  6. ^ abcdef"Dred Scott Case, 1846-1857". Missouri Digital Heritage. Retrieved 2015-07-16. 
  7. ^"U-M Weblogin". search.proquest.com. Retrieved 2017-03-16. 
  8. ^Johnson, George D. (17 January 2011). "Life". Profiles In Hue. Xlibris Corporation. pp. 34–6. ISBN 978-1-4568-5120-0. 
  9. ^"Dred Scott's fight for freedom: 1846–1857". Africans in America: People & Events. PBS. Retrieved March 26, 2012. 
  10. ^ abFehrenbacher, Don Edward (2001). The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-514588-5. [page needed]
  11. ^"Multimedia | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History". www.gilderlehrman.org. Retrieved 2017-03-16. 
  12. ^Ehrlich, Walter (2007). They Have No Rights: Dred Scott's Struggle for Freedom. Applewood Books. 
  13. ^Scott v. Emerson, 15 Mo. 576, 586 (Mo. 1852) Retrieved August 20, 2012.
  14. ^Randall, J. G., and David Donald. A House Divided. The Civil War and Reconstruction. 2nd ed. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1961, pp. 107–114.
  15. ^"Decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case". The New York Daily Times. New York. March 7, 1857. Retrieved May 26, 2011. 
  16. ^ abEhrlich, Walter (September 1968). "Was the Dred Scott Case Valid?". The Journal of American History: 256–265. JSTOR 1899556. 
  17. ^ abHardy, David T. (2012). "Dred Scott, John San(d)ford, and the Case for Collusion"(PDF). Northern Kentucky Law Review. 41 (1). 
  18. ^Axelrod, Alan (2008). Profiles in Folly: History's Worst Decisions and why They Went Wrong. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc. pp. 192–. ISBN 978-1-4027-4768-7. 
  19. ^ abO'Neil, Time (March 6, 2007). "Dred Scott: Heirs to History"(PDF). St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original(PDF) on July 28, 2011. Retrieved May 26, 2011. 
  20. ^Paul Finkleman, Dred Scott v. Sandford: A Brief History with Documents, Palgrave Macmillan, 1997, pp. 7–9, Retrieved February 26, 2011
  21. ^Dred and Harriet Scott: Their Family Story, St. Louis Today, KWMU-FM, Interview with author Ruth Ann Hager, Feb 4, 2010, accessed Feb 4, 2010
  22. ^ abcdefghiArenson, Adam (2014). "Dred Scott versus the Dred Scott Case: The History and Memory of a Signal Moment in American Slavery, 1857–2007". In Konig, David Thomas; Finkelman, Paul; Bracey, Christopher Alan. The Dred Scott Case: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Race and Law. Ohio University Press. pp. 25–46. ISBN 978-0-8214-4328-6. 
  23. ^St. Louis Walk of Fame. "St. Louis Walk of Fame Inductees". stlouiswalkoffame.org. Retrieved 25 April 2013. 
  24. ^Griffin, Marshall. "Dred Scott inducted to Hall of Famous Missourians". Retrieved 2017-03-16. 
  25. ^314-340-8349, Madeline O'Leary • moleary@post-dispatch.com >. "Dred and Harriet Scott statue ready for debut". stltoday.com. Retrieved 2017-03-16. 
  26. ^"From a descendant of Roger Taney to a descendant of Dred Scott: I'm sorry". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-03-07. 
  27. ^Billingsley, Kate T. (2017-03-02). "Historic Healing & Reconciliation 160th Annversary Of Dred Scott Decision Monday March 6, 2017". Kate Taney Billingsley. Retrieved 2017-03-07. 
  28. ^Three 6 Mafia – Spill My Blood, retrieved 2017-03-16 
  29. ^Rage Against the Machine – Voice of the Voiceless, retrieved 2017-03-16 
  30. ^Little Brother – Speed, retrieved 2017-03-16 

External links[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Dred Scott.
  • Dred and Harriet Scott in Minnesota in MNopedia, the Minnesota Encyclopedia
  • "St. Louis Circuit Court Records", A collection of images and transcripts of 19th century Circuit Court Cases in St. Louis, particularly freedom suits, including suits brought by Dred and Harriet Scott. A partnership of Washington University and Missouri History Museum, funded by an IMLS grant
  • "Freedom Suits", African-American Life in St. Louis, 1804–1865, from the Records of the St. Louis Courts, Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, National Park Service
  • Revised Dred Scott Case Collection
  • Christyn Elley, "Biography of Dred Scott", Missouri State Archives
  • Full text of the Dred Scott v. Sandford, Supreme Court decision Findlaw
  • Dred Scott v. Sandford and related resources, Library of Congress
  • "Dred Scott Chronology", Washington University in St. Louis
  • Dred Scott Heritage Foundation
  • Mark Shurtleff, "Am I Not A Man? The Dred Scott Story"
  •  "Scott, Dred". Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography. 1900. 
  • Works by Dred Scott at Project Gutenberg
  • Works by or about Dred Scott at Internet Archive

Dred Scott

In 1846, Dred Scott and his wife Harriet filed suit for their freedom in the St. Louis Circuit Court. This suit began an eleven-year legal fight that ended in the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a landmark decision declaring that the Scotts remained slaves. This decision contributed to rising tensions between the free and slave states just before the American Civil War.

The Revised Dred Scott Case Digital Collection

This website hosts a digital collection of 111 documents from the Dred Scott case and provides information about Dred Scott’s life and family, and about the proceedings.  It is made available through the collaboration of the Missouri State Archives, and Washington University Libraries:

http://digital.wustl.edu/d/dre/index.html (click on browse tab to get to original documents; click on chronology tab for a timeline)

Contemporary Publications from the American Memory Collection (Library of Congress)

The Case of Dred Scott in the Supreme Court: The Full Opinions of Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis and Abstracts of the Opinions of the Other Judges

This PDF document is available through Library of Congress, American Memory Collection.  It includes the text of the decision (two full opinions plus abstracts), reprinted by Horace Greeley & Co. in 1860, together with an Introduction by Dr. J.H. Van Evrie and an Appendix Containing an Essay on the Natural History of the Prognathous Race of Mankind, by Dr. S.A. Cartwright.


Historical and Legal Examination of That Part of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the U.S. in the Dred Scott Case, by Thomas H. Benton (N.Y.: D. Appleton & Co., 1857)


A Legal Review of the Case of Dred Scott, as Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, by Horace Gray and John Lowell (Boston: Crosby, Nichols & Co., 1857).


Contemporary Publications from the American Memory Collection (Library of Congress, cont’d)

An Examination of the Case of Dred Scott Against in the Supreme Court of the , and a Full and Fair Exposition of the Decision of the Court and of the Opinions of the Majority of the Judges, by Samuel A. Foot (N.Y., 1859)


Letter, Roger Brooke Taney to Caleb Cushing thanking Cushing for his support of Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case (November 9, 1857).


Contemporary Publications from the New York Times Archives

A search for “dred scott” will yield numerous contemporary articles about the case, the subsequent emancipation of Dred Scott, reactions among state legislatures and more.


St. Louis courthouse that was site of Dred Scott trial

Contemporary Publications from the Making of ()

Opinion of Judge Daniel, in the Case of Dred Scott (New Englander and Yale Review, Vol. 15 Issue 59, August 1857).


The Dred Scott Case (North American Review, Vol. 85 Issue 177, October 1857).


Letters to the Editor:  Chief Justice Taney in Relation to the Dred Scott Case (The Century, Vol. 26 Issue 5, October 1883).

J.A. Walter, 957-58


Courtenay DeKalb, 958


Landmark Cases:  Dred Scott (from Street Law & the Supreme Court Historical Society)

Diagram of case movement through court system:


Contemporary newspaper editorials:


Text of Abraham Lincoln speech on Dred Scott decision (June 26, 1857): http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=52

Political cartoon, 1860.  Figures left to right clockwise: John C. Breckenridge dances with James Buchanan; Dred Scott seated plays violin; dances with African American woman; John Bell dances with Native American; Stephen Douglas dances with a sovereign in rags

The Dred Scott Decision and its Bitter Legacy (from the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History)

Online exhibit, includes images and documents as well as information about the trials, the parties and the judges. 


Documents from the Dred Scott case

Books Recently Published

Austin, Allen.  Origins of the Dred Scott Case:  Jacksonian Jurisprudence and the Supreme Court, 1837-1857 (, : , 2006).

Finkelman, Paul.  Dred Scott v Sandford: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford Books, 1997).

George, Robert P.  Great Cases in Constitutional Law (Princeton:  Press, 2000).

Graber, Mark A.  Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (N.Y.:  Press, 2006).

Kaufman, Kenneth.  Dred Scott’s Advocate: A Biography of M. Field (, : University of Missouri Press, 1996).

Maltz, Earl M.  Dred Scott and the Politics of Slavery (Lawrence, KS.: University Press of , 2007).Urofsky, Melvin.  The Public Debate Over Controversial Supreme Court Decisions (:  CQ Press, 2006).

VanderVelde, Lea.  Mrs. Dred Scott: A Life on Slavery’s Frontier (N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2009).

0 thoughts on “Dred Scott Bibliography Example

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *