Jump to content

Dred Scott: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
ClueBot (talk | contribs)
m Reverting possible vandalism by 69.47.9.193 to version by Geologyguy. False positive? Report it. Thanks, User:ClueBot. (319269) (Bot)
Line 5: Line 5:


== Overview ==
== Overview ==
The case raised the issue of a black slave who lived in a free state. Congress had not asserted whether slaves were free once they stepped foot on Northern soil. The ruling arguably violated the [[Missouri Compromise]] because, based on the court's logic, a white slave owner could purchase slaves in a slave state and then bring his slaves to a state where slavery was illegal without losing rights to the slaves. This factor upset the Northern [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]] and further split Northern and Southern relations.
This caseraised the issue of a black slave who lived in a free state. Congress had not asserted whether slaves were free once they stepped foot on Northern soil. The ruling arguably violated the [[Missouri Compromise]] because, based on the court's logic, a white slave owner could purchase slaves in a slave state and then bring his slaves to a state where slavery was illegal without losing rights to the slaves. This factor upset the Northern [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]] and further split Northern and Southern relations.


Scott traveled with his master Dr. John Emerson, who was in the army and often transferred. Scott's extended stay with his master in [[Illinois]], a free state, gave him the legal standing to make a claim for freedom, as did his extended stay at [[Fort Snelling]] in the [[Wisconsin Territory]], where slavery was also prohibited. But Scott never made the claim while living in the free lands—perhaps because he was unaware of his rights at the time, or fearful of possible repercussions. After two years, the army transferred Emerson to the South: first to [[St. Louis, Missouri]], then to [[Louisiana]]. In just over a year, the recently married Emerson summoned his slave couple. Instead of staying in the free territory of Wisconsin, or going to the free state of Illinois, the two traveled nearly 2000 km, apparently unaccompanied, down the [[Mississippi River]] to meet their master. Only after Emerson's death in 1843, when Emerson's widow hired out Scott to an [[army captain]], did Scott seek freedom for himself and his wife. First he offered to buy his freedom from Emerson's widow, Irene Emerson — then living in St. Louis — for $300. The offer was refused, leaving Scott to seek freedom through the courts.
Scott traveled with his master Dr. John Emerson, who was in the army and often transferred. Scott's extended stay with his master in [[Illinois]], a free state, gave him the legal standing to make a claim for freedom, as did his extended stay at [[Fort Snelling]] in the [[Wisconsin Territory]], where slavery was also prohibited. But Scott never made the claim while living in the free lands—perhaps because he was unaware of his rights at the time, or fearful of possible repercussions. After two years, the army transferred Emerson to the South: first to [[St. Louis, Missouri]], then to [[Louisiana]]. In just over a year, the recently married Emerson summoned his slave couple. Instead of staying in the free territory of Wisconsin, or going to the free state of Illinois, the two traveled nearly 2000 km, apparently unaccompanied, down the [[Mississippi River]] to meet their master. Only after Emerson's death in 1843, when Emerson's widow hired out Scott to an [[army captain]], did Scott seek freedom for himself and his wife. First he offered to buy his freedom from Emerson's widow, Irene Emerson — then living in St. Louis — for $300. The offer was refused, leaving Scott to seek freedom through the courts.

Revision as of 22:32, 14 April 2008

Dred Scott

Dred Scott (1799September 17, 1858), was a slave in the United States who sued unsuccessfully for his freedom in the famous Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1856. His case was based on the fact that he and his wife Harriet were slaves, but had lived in states and territories where slavery was illegal, including Illinois and Wisconsin, which was then part of the Louisiana Purchase. The court ruled seven to two against Scott, finding that neither he, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States, and that therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not affect his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, since reaching that result would deprive Scott's owner of his property.

Overview

This caseraised the issue of a black slave who lived in a free state. Congress had not asserted whether slaves were free once they stepped foot on Northern soil. The ruling arguably violated the Missouri Compromise because, based on the court's logic, a white slave owner could purchase slaves in a slave state and then bring his slaves to a state where slavery was illegal without losing rights to the slaves. This factor upset the Northern Republicans and further split Northern and Southern relations.

Scott traveled with his master Dr. John Emerson, who was in the army and often transferred. Scott's extended stay with his master in Illinois, a free state, gave him the legal standing to make a claim for freedom, as did his extended stay at Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was also prohibited. But Scott never made the claim while living in the free lands—perhaps because he was unaware of his rights at the time, or fearful of possible repercussions. After two years, the army transferred Emerson to the South: first to St. Louis, Missouri, then to Louisiana. In just over a year, the recently married Emerson summoned his slave couple. Instead of staying in the free territory of Wisconsin, or going to the free state of Illinois, the two traveled nearly 2000 km, apparently unaccompanied, down the Mississippi River to meet their master. Only after Emerson's death in 1843, when Emerson's widow hired out Scott to an army captain, did Scott seek freedom for himself and his wife. First he offered to buy his freedom from Emerson's widow, Irene Emerson — then living in St. Louis — for $300. The offer was refused, leaving Scott to seek freedom through the courts.

Life

Dred Scott was born in Southampton County, Virginia, in 1799 as property of the Peter Blow family. It appears that Scott was originally named Sam and had an older brother named Dred. However, when the brother died as a young man, Scott chose to use his name. The Blow family settled near Huntsville, Alabama, where the Peter Blow family unsuccessfully tried farming. In 1830 Scott and the Blow family relocated to St. Louis, Missouri, where, the Blow family sold Scott to John Emerson, a doctor serving in the United States Army. Dr. Emerson traveled extensively in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territories, where the Northwest Ordinance prohibited slavery. Emerson met and married Irene Sandford.[1] The couple returned to Missouri in 1842. John Emerson died in 1843. John F. A. Sandford, brother of the widow Irene Sandford Emerson, became executor of the Emerson estate.

Scott filed suit to obtain his freedom in 1846 and went to trial in 1847 in a state courthouse in St. Louis. Scott lost the first trial, but the presiding judge granted a second trial because hearsay evidence had been introduced. Three years later, in 1850, a jury decided that Scott and his wife should be freed. The widow, Irene Sanford Emerson, appealed. In 1852, the Missouri Supreme Court struck down the lower court ruling, saying, "Times now are not as they were when the previous decisions on this subject were made." The Scotts were again returned to their masters.

With the aid of new lawyers (including Montgomery Blair), the Scotts sued again in federal court. They lost and appealed to the United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford. In 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion, that:

  • Any person descended from black Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States, according to the Declaration of Independence.
  • The Ordinance of 1787 could not confer freedom or citizenship within the Northwest Territory to black people.
  • The provisions of the Act of 1820, known as the Missouri Compromise, were voided as a legislative act because the act exceeded the powers of Congress, insofar as it attempted to exclude slavery and impart freedom and citizenship to Black people in the northern part of the Louisiana cession.[2]

In effect, the Court ruled that slaves had no claim to freedom; they were property and not citizens; they could not bring suit in federal court; and because slaves were private property, the federal government could not revoke a white slave owner's right to own a slave based on where he lived, thus nullifying the essence of the Missouri Compromise. Taney, speaking for the majority, also ruled that since Scott was an object of private property, he was subject to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibits taking property from its owner "without due process".

Gravesite

After the ruling, with Sanford in an insane asylum, Scott was returned as property to Irene Emerson. However, in 1850, Emerson had remarried to an abolitionist, Calvin C. Chaffee, who shortly thereafter was elected to Congress. In a bizarre turn of events, Chaffee was apparently unaware that his wife owned arguably the most prominent slave in America until a month before the Supreme Court decision. Too late to intervene, the severely criticized Chaffee proceeded to have Emerson return Scott to his original owners, the Blow family, who, as Missouri residents, could emancipate him. Scott was formally freed on May 26, 1857 and worked as a porter in St. Louis for less than nine months before he died from tuberculosis in September 1858. He was survived by his wife and his daughter Eliza Scott (born 1838).

Dred Scott is interred in Calvary Cemetery, St. Louis, Missouri. Harriet Scott was long thought to be buried near her husband, but it was recently proven that she was buried in Greenwood Cemetery in Hillsdale, Missouri. She outlived her husband by 18 years, dying on June 17, 1876.

In 1997, Dred and Harriet Scott were inducted into the St. Louis Walk of Fame.

References

  1. ^ Vishneski, John. "What the Court Decided in Dred Scott v. Sandford". The American Journal of Legal History 32(4): 373-390.
  2. ^ "Decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case"