The Start of Something New
Background: Dred Scott was born into slavery and was purchased by U.S. Army Surgeon Dr. John Emerson after he was taken to Missouri by his original owner Peter Blow. Dr. John Emerson took him to Fort Armstrong, located in Illinois. Illinois was made a free state under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. The Northwest Ordinance had prohibited slavery since 1787. Illinois was defined as a free state in its constitution when it was admitted as a state of the United States. Previously, Scott had attempted to purchase freedom for himself and his family, but Mrs. Emerson, refused, causing Scott to seek legal recourse.
First Try: Because Emerson would not let him purchase his freedom, Scott took it upon himself to sue Emerson for his freedom in a Missouri Court in 1846. The son of his previous owner, Peter Blow, helped Scott. So did other abolitionists legal advisors, like me, helped Scott with going to the court. As he argued, he based his arguments on precedents that include Somersett v. Stewart, Winny v. Whitesides, and Rachel v. Walker. We all had hoped that Scott would win his case, because about 10 other cases were successful in the state of Missouri. However, he had a technicality which was not having a witness to prove that he was in fact Emerson’s slave. Second Try: Scott v. Emerson: It wasn’t until the end of 1847, had the judge granted Scott a new trial. Emerson appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Missouri, which caused the trial court order in 1848. The trial did not begin until January 1850, because of a cholera epidemic. This time Scott was able to produce a witness who was able to testify on Scott’s behalf. The jury, who followed the Missouri precedent, found in favor of Scott and his family. Emerson, bitter from her loss, decided to appeal to the Supreme Court of Missouri, even though she had relocated and gave her slaves to her brother, John F. A, Sandford. Unfairness of the Supreme Court: In November of 1852, the Missouri Supreme Court changed their decisions on the trial. The state managed to overturn 28 years of Missouri state precedent. It stated that the Scotts were still legally slaves and that they should have sued for freedom when they were in a free state, which Missouri was not at the time. Chief Justice William Scott declared: Times are not now as they were when the former decisions on this subject were made. Since then not only individuals but States have been possessed with a dark and fell spirit in relation to slavery, whose gratification is sought in the pursuit of measures, whose inevitable consequences must be the overthrow and destruction of our government. Under such circumstances it does not behoove the State of Missouri to show the least countenance to any measure which might gratify this spirit. She is willing to assume her full responsibility for the existence of slavery within her limits, nor does she seek to share or divide it with others. |
|
The Dred Scott v. Sandford Case
Kevin Hughes explains the Dred v. Scott Sandford Case and the decison made.
|
Scott v. Sanford: Scott was not the type of man to give up, as he tried to sue the brother of Emerson, John F. A. Stanford. But instead of going to the Supreme Court, he went to federal court. At the trial in 1853, Judge Robert William Wells directed the jury to depend on Missouri State Law to settle the debate on whether Scott should be declared a free man or not. But because of the Supreme Court’s decision that Scott should be remained a slave, the jury, of course, sided with Sanford. With the jury using the previous Supreme Court case, Scott knew that in order to attempt to get his freedom, he would have to appease to the Supreme Court who made the original ruling in the first place.
The Lasting Decision from the Supreme Court: Once Scott decided to go to the Supreme Court, it is rumored that the President-elect, James Buchanan applied pressure to U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice John Catron, asking if the case would be decided before his inauguration. Buchanan wanted the court to settle this issue as many people were in unrest in country over the slavery issue by stating that the ruling could possibly put the future of slavery beyond the realm of political debate. The president elect, Buchanan seemed to put pressure on the Associate Justice Robert Cooper Grier, who was a Northerner himself, to join the Southern side on the decision so that he could prevent the appearance that the decision was made along sectional lines. It is speculated that Chief Justice Roger Taney had whispered to the president before his inaugural address that the slavery question would “be speedily and finally settled” by the Supreme Court. Just two days after the supposed whisper to Buchanan, In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court denied Scott's request. The decision ruled that the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. Backfired choices: Although it is assumed that Taney wanted to make sure that the slavery question was answered and settled, the decision caused vehement dissent from all those that did not agree with slavery. These people were typically Republicans and Northerners. The way the case was displayed and carried out was done incorrectly and unfairly. Taney was not very fair, because instead of ruling it based off of how it should be done, Taney tried to impress the President. Taney abused his power to making sure African-Americans were not given the opportunity to be freed. Taney also enforced the rule that we, African-Americans, were not allowed to be considered citizens of the United States as the constitution itself stated we were. Instead of settling the issue from the beginning, the Supreme Court only dragged out the “slave question”. |