Dred Scott v. Sanford: Case Summary & Decision

Dred Scott Case Part 5

1850 retrial ended in the Scott's favor the judge and jury applied the once free always free principal and finally Dred and Harriet Scott were free. This is Emerson's lawyers however we're not ready to give up and he appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court after examining the case the Missouri Supreme Court overturned the lower courts ruling in 1852 and since the Scott's back into slavery the judges argued that Missouri should not have to recognize the laws of other states if they were in opposition to its own laws just because Illinois and Wisconsin territory were free Missouri didn't have to freed slaves besides the judges continued. The Scots have voluntarily decided to return to slave territory and in doing so they have given up whatever freedom they might have had.

Dred Scott Case Part 3

Between 1836 and 1837 Scott Married Harriet Robinson a slave woman whose owner transferred ownership to Emerson. The couple remained at Fort Snelling hired out to a local resident even after Emerson moved back to St. Louis in 1837. After Emerson was transferred to Louisiana he called the Scots to come to him which they did voluntarily moved back into a slave territory eventually the couple ended up back in St. Louis hired out to a grocer. When Emerson died in 1843 their ownership transferred to his wife Eliza Irene Emerson.

Short Summary

Dred Scott a slave owned by Eliza Irene Emerson wife of the late Dr. John Emerson sued for freedom for himself and his wife. Claiming that because they had lived in a free state of Illinois and the free Wisconsin territory they were already free. After a long string of court cases which alternately gave Scott's their freedom and revoked it to kiss reached the US Supreme Court the US Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. Rules that the Scots must remain in slavery African Americans Taney explained. Were not citizens could not petition the court system they have no rights of the white people were bound to respect. Further the Missouri compromise which prohibited slavery in certain western territories was unconstitutional. The courts decision sparked away the fear and protesting in the North and the Republican Party with its candidate Abraham Lincoln was all set to turn the northern upset to its favor in the 1860 presidential election.

Dred Scott Case Part 2

Emerson was an army surgeon who was appointed the various military posts he took Scott with them from Fort Armstrong Illinois in 1833 and then to Fort Snelling in Wisconsin territory in 1836. Both of these forts were on free soil were slavery was prohibited Illinois was free under the Northwest ordinance of 1787. And Wisconsin territory was free under the Missouri compromise of 1820. Scott however remained a slave.

Dred Scott Case Part 4

In 1846, the Scots decided to sue Mrs. Emerson for their freedom. They argued that because they had resided in a free state and territory were slavery was prohibited they were actually already free and have been since their time in Illinois and Wisconsin territory. Missouri law and court president seem to agree with him for most lawmakers and judges supported the principal once free always free. A Strain of court cases followed the Scott's petition in the first trial of 1847 the judge dismissed the case on a technicality claiming that the evidence didn't completely prove that Mrs. Emerson actually owned the Scott's.

Dred Scott Case Part 8

Northerners especially abolitionists furiously protested the courts pro south bias. Even Northerners who had no particular sympathy for slaves feared that the spread of slavery with limited opportunities for white farmers and laborers to obtain the land and jobs in the west the newly created Republican Party and it's candidate Abraham Lincoln were more than ready to make these northern fears work in their favor during the 1860 presidential election. What happened to traffic. Scott their owner Mrs. Emerson had remarried and her new husband was an abolitionist who was appalled to learn about his wife slaves. He returned the Scots to the Blow family who immediately freed them on May 26 1857. The Scott's we're finally and forever free.

Dred Scott Case Part 1

Scott was born a slave in Virginia around the turn of the 19th century he served the Peter Blow family during childhood and as an adult and he moved with them to St. Louis Missouri where in the early 1830's Scott was sold to Dr. John Emerson.

Dred Scott Case Part 6

Still seeking justice and freedom for Scott's next turned to the federal court system this time they brought a lawsuit against Mrs. Emerson's brother John Stanford claimed ownership of them. In 1854 the federal court upheld the Missouri Supreme Court ruling the Scots were still slaves. The only one more chance for freedom they would take the case to the US supreme court. The courts nine justices heard the case in February 1856. Prospects of success were slim from the beginning. Seven of the justices had been appointed by pro slavery president and five of these were from slave-holding families. Scott's lawyer argued his clients were permanently free because they have lived in every state and territory the opposition charting new tactic cleaned the Scots were never free in the first place because the Northwest ordinance the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional and Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery.

Dred Scott Case Part 7

The courts final decision handed down on March 6, 1857. Seven of the nine justices ruled against Scott. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney explained the majority opinion that first first of all Scott had no right to petition the court to begin with. African-Americans were not citizens the Declaration of Independence and Constitution didn't apply and African-Americans had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. The court ruled that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. Congress overstated their boundaries by trying to prohibit slavery in the territories in the end the Scots were still slaves. Pro slavery Southerners rejoice of the Courts decision claiming the victory for slave owners rights.