Introduction: In 1776, the authors of the Declaration of Independence wrote, “All men are

created equal.” Do you think they meant all men? Why or why not?

What you need to know:

● In 1853, an enslaved Black person named Dred Scott sued his owner, John Sandford, for
his freedom.
● Scott had been born into slavery in Missouri but had been taken by his owner to Illinois, a
state that outlawed slavery
● When Scott returned to Missouri, he sued for his freedom, but was denied; his appeal
went to the Supreme Court
● Roger Tanet was chief justice of the Supreme COurt from 1836 to 1864
● Our document comes from the Supreme Court’s decision in the Scott v. Sandford case,
which was written by Taney
● The court decided in favor of Sandford, arguing that Scott had no grounds on which to
sue anyone, because neither he nor any black descendant of slaves was a citizen.

Document: Scott v. Sandford, Supreme Court, 1856

The question is simply this: can a negro whose ancestors were imported into this country
and sold as slaves become a member of the political community formed and brought into
existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights,
and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen, one of which rights
is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the
Constitution? ...
The situation of this population was altogether unlike that of the Indian race. ... although
they [Native Americans) were uncivilized, they were yet a free and independent people,
associated together in nations or tribes and governed by their own laws.... It is true that the
course of events h tribes within the limits of the United States under subjection to the white race,
and it has been found necessary, for their sake as well as our own, to regard them as in a state of
pupilage, and to legislate to a certain extent over them and the territory they occupy. But they
may, without doubt, like the subjects of any other foreign Government, be naturalized by the
authority of Congress, and become citizens of a State, and of the United States, and if an
individual should
leave his nation or tribe and take up his abode among the white population, he would be entitled
to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people.

... In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in
the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported
as slaves nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as
a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable
instrument. ...

They [Black people] 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. ...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed."

The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they
were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for
dispute that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included.

Source: Justia. (n.d.). Scott v. Sandford. Retrieved from

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/case.html

Student Questions:

1. According to Taney, why doesn’t the promise of equal rights in the Declaration of
Independence apply to Black people?
Taney didn’t recognize black people’s citizenship, He views them as instruments or labors that
can be traded. Furthermore, he thinks that the founding father does not consider people of color
when they wrote the constitution. Thus, he thinks the constitution does not apply to black people,
so does the equal rights in the declaration of independence.

2. According to Taney, how could Native AMericans become citizens of the U.S.?
If an native Americans leave his nation or tribe and take up his abode among the white
population, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an
emigrant from any other foreign people.

3. Create a Venn diagram that shows similarities and differences between Taney’s
views of Native Americans and of Black People.
 Indian Black
Recognize as Both Recognize as
whole people objects and labors
Uncivilized
Right to become Not consider
citizen Can’t be in citizen
congress
Independent Object
nation savage

Can be naturalized

4. How do you think Roger Sherman, from the last lesson, would respond to Roger
Taney’s argument? Back up your answer with a quote or cite material.
I think he would disagree with Roger Taney because he opposes the slave trade. He once
said that "the public good did not require" slavery, thus I think he will be more aware of
the citizenship black people. Furthermore, Taney is not even counting black as ⅗ a
person, thus Roger Sherman might probably disagree with Taney.

5. Do you think founding documents, including the Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence, should be applied as the writers intended or as people today
interpret them? Why? (Minimum 1 paragraph answer).
In my opinion, the declaration of independence should applied as people today
interpret them, because the constitution also need to adapt today’s situation. Constitution
is not outdated because of its flexibility. Furthermore, how do we know what the writer
intended to say? It is hard to prove that, and what we called the “writer's intention” is
indeed our interpretation of the writer’s opinion. To me,these two concepts are not
independent of each other. In other words, so called “writers intention” is what people
used to justify and support their point. Therefore, I think we should not be restricted by
its “origin meaning”, more on how it can be interpreted to adapted today’s society and
progress along with the era.