Blair was opposed by an old political adversary, Senator Henry Geyer of Missouri. Geyer
obtained the assistance of his Maryland friend, former senator and former attorney general of the
United States, Reverdy Johnson. Johnson took the lead in the case. Johnson himself had
emancipated his slaves, saying "I believe and have ever believed since I was capable of thought,
that slavery is a great affliction to any country where it prevails."142 As an attorney, Johnson had
represented both blacks and masters in petitions for freedom. He was counsel for Beverly
Dowling in his suit for freedom. Johnson won the case on the basis that Dowling had left
Maryland with his master's consent. But Bowling's suit involved a purely local issue, while
Scott's presented questions of national importance. Like the Blairs, Johnson sought the
continuation of the union, but his prescription was just the reverse. He believed that disunion
could be quieted by taking the slavery issue out of politics - and this could be done by denying
federal power to restrict its expansion.

Blair's brief on appeal emphasized Scott's citizenship and his right to freedom under the
law of Illinois. Citizenship was critical because if free blacks were citizens, fugitive slaves could
allege citizenship in the northern state where they were captured and bring a trespass action in
federal court that would be tried by a sympathetic jury. This would avoid the impact of the
Fugitive Slave Act. Geyer and Johnson replied to these issues and also argued that the residence
in upper Louisiana did not result in freedom because Congress did not have power to enact the
Missouri Compromise.

After hearing the case, the Court ordered a reargument at the next term, focusing on the
issues of whether the plea in abatement was properly before the Court and, if so, whether the
circuit court had ruled correctly. At the reargument, George Tichnor Curtis, the brother of
Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis from Massachusetts, joined Blair in arguing for Scott.

Initially, Justice Nelson was assigned to write the opinion of the Court, holding that the
plea in abatement was not before the Court and that, pursuant to dicta in a prior decision of the
Supreme Court, the status of Scott was a matter of Missouri law which under the prior state court
decision held that he was a slave. Nelson ultimately delivered this opinion, but in the meantime,
the justices changed their views on how the case should be handled. The opinion of the Court
was to be delivered by Chief Justice Taney, a former colleague of Francis Blair under Jackson,
and a friend of Reverdy Johnson, whom Taney called the greatest lawyer in Maryland and
probably in the United States.

The decision was historically significant in a number of different ways. Designed to end
the slavery controversy, it exacerbated it. Debate over the decision was central to the
Lincoln-Douglas debates which gave Lincoln a national status and led to his ultimate election as
president. That debate did not question Taney"s decision on black citizenship because the
Republican tactic was to condemn the decision on the Missouri Compromise as dicta, leaving the
party free to continue to urge barriers to the extension of slavery. The thirteenth amendment was
enacted to respond to the issues of federal and state power over the status of slavery at issue in
Dred Scott. The fourteenth amendment was more responsive to issues of citizenship raised by

59