Lesson 2: Equal Protection: RaceTopic: How did the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford affect the controversy over slavery before the civil war? Background: Although an illiterate Missouri slave, Dred Scott became the center of a bitter controversy between the slave states and free states prior to the Civil War. Taken in hand by abolitionists, Scott sued for his freedom in Federal Court based upon his residence on free soil where he lived with his master between 1834-1838 before returning to the slave state of Missouri. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where Dred Scott lost his bid for freedom and the decision became one of the most compelling victories for pro-slavery forces. To understand why the Court decided as it did, it is important to remember that the year was 1857. The Constitution consisted of only twelve amendments. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments and the full emancipation of slaves were several years away. Still, the Missouri Compromise and the Fifth Amendment could have been interpreted to grant Dred Scott his freedom. Instead, Chief Justice Taney, pro-Southern in his views, repealed the Missouri Compromise and denied to Dred Scott and all slaves the protection of the Constitution. The opinion proclaimed that slaves were not citizens of the United States and had no claims under the Constitution. Slaves were "property" and possessed no rights other than the ordinary property rights claimed for them by their masters. The decision had grim repercussions for a nation already torn over the slavery issue and became a catalyst for the Civil War. This lesson helps students gain an understanding of what "slaves as property" meant, through the study of the decision itself and the evaluation of a variety of viewpoints culled from primary source materials which reflect early notions of race and equality. Objectives: After studying the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford and participating in a debate based on different viewpoints of the case as presented in source material, students will be able to:
Materials: Handout 2A "Background of the Case" Handout 2B "Decision of the Case" Handout 2C "Debating the Issues" Time Required: 1-2 class periods Procedures: Distribute Handout 2A Background of the Dred Scott Case. Have students read the background and study the issues. Divide the class in two groups. One group will support the position of Dred Scott and the abolitionists. The other group will support the position of the pro-slavery South. Then, divide each group into smaller groups consisting of five students each. The groups of five supporting Dred Scott will meet on one side of the room. The groups of five supporting slavery will meet on the other side of the room. Each group of five will meet individually and prepare their arguments on the Handout. A representative of each group will visit the other groups on his/her side of the room. The purpose of the visit will be to determine if there are any arguments that his/her group may have missed. After each group has organized the arguments and recorded them on the Handout, students will be selected from both sides to make a presentation before the class. Then, have students explain their answers to the following questions:
Distribute Handout 2B "The Dred Scott Decision" Read the opinion and have students complete the activity. After completing the activity, have students explain their answers to the following questions:
Distribute Handout 2C "Debating the Issues" Four student volunteers will be selected to participate in a debate. Debater 1 - Chief Justice Taney who wrote the opinion in Dred Scott see Handout 2.B Debater 2 - Author of "Democrat" Debater 3 - Frederick Douglass Debater 4 - Author of "Christian Watchman and Reflector" Students will debate the following issue: Resolved: Dred Scott is the law of the land and must be followed Debaters 1 and 2 will form the team supporting the resolution. Debaters 3 and 4 will form the team opposing the resolution. Two additional students will be selected to serve as chairperson and timekeeper The four debaters may be selected during a previous class and given the topic so that they have sufficient time to prepare their arguments. Conduct the debate according to the following procedures: a. The chairperson and the debaters are seated at the front of the class, usually with the team in favor of the resolution to the right of the chairperson and the team in opposition to the resolution to the left of the chairperson. b. The chairperson briefly introduces the subject and states the resolution that is to be debated. c. The chairperson introduces the first speaker from the team in support of the resolution. Each speaker is introduced when each is given the floor. d. The first speaker from the team in support of the resolution is allowed a set amount of time to present the constructive argument s/he has prepared. The timekeeper, seated with the class, indicates when the time limit has been reached. e. The first speaker from the team in opposition to the resolution is introduced and asked to give his/her constructive argument. This procedure of presenting pro and con speakers alternately is continued until each debater has given his/her constructive argument. After the first speaker, those who follow will probably need to adjust their prepared speeches to allow for what has been said by preceding speakers. f. Rebuttal arguments follow the series of constructive arguments given by both teams. The team in opposition to the resolution always begins the rebuttal argument series. Each debater is given an opportunity to speak extemporaneously for a set amount of time, attempting to weaken the position presented by the opposing team. Rebuttal arguments also provide an opportunity to answer attacks that have been made by the opposing team. While rebuttal arguments are presented extemporaneously, debaters should anticipate possible positions the opposition might take and be prepared with appropriate counter arguments. No new issues may be introduced during rebuttal arguments. Debrief and/or evaluate the debate and the performance of the debate teams by informally polling the class to determine how many agree with the team in support of the resolution and how many agree with the team in opposition to the resolution. Class members should be asked to explain whether or not their own positions were strengthened or changed as a result of hearing the debate and to explain why. Class members should also be asked to make statements which they feel could have been used as effective arguments by the debaters. After completing the debate, have students explain their answers to the following questions:
Performance Assessment: Divide the class into dyads (two). The students in each dyed are pen pals. One pen pal lives in the North and the other pen pal lives in the South. Each student will write a letter to his/her pen pal describing the reactions of their part of the country to the Dred Scott case. Further Enrichment: Based on multiple intelligence theory. Linguistic: Students will write an editorial expressing their opinion of the Dred Scott case. Research the dissenting opinions in Dred Scott and compare it to your version of the dissent. Logical/Mathematical: Students will discuss the dilemma faced by presidential candidate Stephen Douglas after the Dred Scott decision. Douglas supported popular sovereignty that was declared unconstitutional as a result of Dred Scott. Students should decide how Douglas should resolve this dilemma. Spatial: Design a poster or a newspaper ad supporting and opposing the Dred Scott decision. Trace the various states in which Dred Scott lived on a map Kinesthetic: Conduct a role-play in which students are paired off. One student is a slaveholder from the South and the other is an abolitionist from the North. The two students should have a conversation about Dred Scott. Rearrange the pairs so students are now partners with someone other than in the original pair. Make sure that students are paired off so that this time their roles are reversed. Student pairs should again have a conversation about Dred Scott. Intrapersonal: Have students close their eyes for a few minutes and focus on their feelings on the Dred Scott case. Interpersonal: Divide the class into equal sized groups consisting of abolitionists who must decide on possible actions they can take after the Dred Scott decision.
Handout 2A: EQUAL PROTECTION: RACE Background of the Dred Scott Case Dred Scott was a slave owned by John Emerson, a U.S. Army surgeon stationed in Missouri. In 1834, Dr. Emerson took Dred Scott to Illinois and the territory of upper Wisconsin that later became part of Minnesota where slavery had been forbidden under the terms of the Missouri Compromise. In 1838, Emerson and Scott returned to the slave state of Missouri. In 1846, Scott won a lawsuit in Missouri state court on the grounds that having lived in free territory, he was now entitled to his freedom. The ruling was overturned by the state Supreme Court. Various anti-slavery interests decided to make a fictitious sale of Scott to John Sandford of New York, Emerson's brother-in-law. The action classified the issue as a dispute between citizens of different states bringing the case within the jurisdiction of the federal court system allowing Scott another opportunity to sue for his freedom. The Federal Court held that Scott was a slave and Sandford's property. Scott appealed this ruling all the way to the United States Supreme Court on a writ of error-a claim that a mistake had been made in legal interpretation. The Supreme Court decided to hear the case because of the importance of the following issues:
Activity Arguments in favor of granting Dred Scott his freedom ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Arguments against granting Dred Scott his freedom ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Handout 2B: EQUAL PROTECTION: RACE
Decision of the Court Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court: The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed [approved] in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guaranteed to the citizens of the United States, in every state that might desire it, for twenty years. And the government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time, if the slave escapes from his owner. This is done in plain words-too plain to be misunderstood. And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property, or which entitles property of that kind to less protection, than property of any other description. The only power conferred [given] is the power coupled with the duty of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights. Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the Court that the Act of Congress [Missouri Compromise] which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line [of 36° 30'] therein mentioned is not warranted [permitted] by the Constitution, and is therefore void; and that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made free by being carried into this territory; even if they had been carried there by the owner with the intention of becoming a permanent resident. Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgement of this Court that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error [Dred Scott] is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution; and that the Circuit Court of the United States for that reason had no jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgement in it.
Write a dissenting opinion to the Dred Scott majority opinion above. Handout 2C: EQUAL PROTECTION: RACE Debating the Issues
Debater 1: Chief Justice Taney See Handout 2.B
Debater 2: "Democrat" in The Liberator, April 3, 1857 The highest judicial tribunal in the land has decided that ... the colored population, are not citizens of the United States. This decision must be followed by other decisions and regulations in the individual states themselves. Negro suffrage must, of course, be abolished everywhere. Not being citizens, they can claim none of the rights or privileges belonging to a citizen. They can neither vote, hold office, nor occupy any other position in society than an inferior and subordinate one-the only one for which they are fitted, the only one for which they have the natural qualifications which entitle them to enjoy or possess.
Debater 3: Frederick Douglass on Dred Scott I have no fear that the national conscience will be put to sleep by such an open, glaring, and scandalous [bunch] of lies as that decision is and has been over and over shown to be. The Supreme Court of the United States is not the only power in this world. It is [powerful], but the Supreme Court of the Almighty [God] is greater ... We can appeal from man to God. All that is merciful and just, on earth and in heaven, will despise this [decision]. We, the abolitionists and colored people, should meet this decision, unlooked for and monstrous as it appears, in a cheerful spirit. This very attempt to blot out forever the hopes of an enslaved people may be one necessary link in the chain of events leading to the downfall and complete overthrow of the whole slave system. Adapted from: Two Speeches by Frederick Douglass, 1857.
Debater 4: Reaction of the Christian Watchman and Reflector to the Dred Scott Decision Shall this decision be submitted to? It need not be. … The people are mightier than courts or presidents. The acts of Congress (Missouri Compromise), though declared void, are not repealed. The acts of the free states, though pronounced invalid, still exist. If the people will, they can be maintained and enforced. … The decision is also opposed to the unanimous judgement of the statesmen and jurists by whom the Constitution was formed ... No man who has in his veins a drop kindred to the blood that bought our liberties can actively submit to their decree. … If the Constitution [becomes] a charter to protect slavery, everywhere, then it is a sin against God and man to swear allegiance to it. Every man will be forced to choose between disunion and the guilt of an accomplice in the crime of slavery. May God avert such an alternative! |