To tell the story of a slave is, of necessity, to tell the story largely, of his masters. This is the story of a slave that whished for freedom. After belonging to several different owners, Dred whished to carry on his life as a free man with his wife and two children. Relying on the “Justice System” in America. Dred took his fight for freedom to the courts, little did he know that his case would one day go down in history as the turning point in American slavery.
The Blow family were Dred’s first masters; they lived on a farm in Virginia, poor and worn out from years of cultivation, they moved with the “Era of Good Feelings” west like so many others to Huntsville, Alabama (Hopkins 1).
For eleven years the Blow’s farmed in Alabama, but either the land had not been as bountiful as promised, or the lure of greater possibilities in growing St Louis caused Peter Blow to move on. Huntsville was left behind and the Blows and their Negroes traveled again, this time northwest (Hopkins 2).
Peter Blow set up a boarding house called The Jefferson Hotel in St Louis, but accumulating unpaid bills indicate that the venture was less than successful. Peter Blow eventually gave up his hotel and moved his family into another house, but his own health failed in the months that followed, he died on June 23,1863 (Fehrenbacher 239)
After Mr. Blow’s death in 1863 Dred was sold to meet creditors debts for five hundred dollars to Dr. John Emerson who at the time had been trying to obtain an appointment as assistant surgeon to the United States Army. He received his commission and took with him a slave who was the former property of Peter Blow (Ferenbacher 240).
The Essay on Female Slave Jefferson Story Modern
One of the most destructive and deceptive propaganda tricks of the modern left is the calculated misrepresentation of American history for the purpose of bolstering the liberal political agenda, discrediting hallowed American institutions and heroes, and legitimizing ideas and behavior that have long been condemned. Only two days befor this fall's elections, the liberal media resorted to yet ...
Dred could neither read nor write, and on legal documents he made his “mark”. He had very dark skin and may have been no more than five feet tall. He was described by a newspaper once as “ illiterate but not ignorant” with a “ strong common sense” he however still remains a very indistinct figure (Ferenbacher 240).
It is uncertain how Dred felt about being sold to Dr Emerson, opinions on this differ. By one account he was so distraught that he ran away immediately after being sold and by another that he had begged John Emerson to buy him after having been whipped badly by Peter Blow (Ferenbacher 241).
When John Emerson received his commission he moved to Fort Armstrong, Illinois, a free state with his slave Dred Scott. He spent some 9 years as an assistant surgeon in the United States Army. During that period if Emerson correspondence with the Surgeon General is to be believed he must have been one of the sickest doctors kept on active military duty. There was always a motive in his illness however, for he seldom wrote the general without asking for transfer or a leave of absence (Fehrenbacher 243).
Life at an army barracks certainly may not have been arduous for Dred but it certainly must have been a shock for Emerson because within 2 months he asked for leave citing that he had contracted “syphiloid disease” on a recent visit to Philadelphia. In 1836 when the army decided to vacate Fort Armstrong, Emerson found himself transferred at last. His new station was at Fort Snelling on the upper west bank of the Mississippi River, thus Scott, who had been a slave in a free state for more than 2 years had been taken to an area where slavery was forbidden as part of the Missouri Compromise.
Scott would meet a slave girl named Harriett Robinson while at Fort Snelling. Harriett was either then sold to Emerson or given to Scott for wife, with permission they married and would remain together for the next 20 years.
Emerson was not happy at Fort Snelling he complained about the cold. He moved to Fort Jesup leaving behind his 2 slaves. While at Fort Jesup Emerson married, his bride was Eliza Irene Sanford They wed on February 6, 1838(Hopkins 6).
The Essay on F Scott Fitzgerald His Beautiful And Damned World
F. Scott Fitzgerald was born into a Catholic family in St. Paul, Minnesota, on September 24, 1896. Educated in private prep schools and then at Princeton until 1917, when he enlisted in the army because he feared he wouldnt graduate , he was a middle-class, Midwestern boy who coveted the wonders of the East. When he married Zelda Sayre, a southern, upper-class daughter of a wealthy Alabama Supreme ...
Emerson then tried to escape Fort Jesup He wrote to the Surgeon General on July 10, 1838 citing reasons for his transfer northward, he explained his legal difficulties “ Even one of my Negroes in Saint Louis has sued me for his freedom”(Hopkins 7).
On September 23, 1842 Emerson found himself without an appointment, the medical staff of the army being greatly reduced. A reappointment seemed certain but Emerson died at Davenport on December 30, 1843(Hopkins 7).
With the death of their masters Dred and his family passed to Mrs. Emerson, “for the term of her natural life”.
Dred Scott tried to buy his family’s freedom from Mrs. Emerson, but she refused. This is at least, is what he told a newspaper reporter many years later. If true, this story leaves the unanswered question: why Mrs. Emerson rejected the offer to get rid of an allegedly “shiftless” and by then, middle-aged slave (Fehrenbacher 250).
On April 6, 1846 Dred petitioned the Missouri court circuit citing his residency on free soil in Illinois and in the Minnesota Territory, as grounds for his freedom (Hopkins 10).
The judge promptly gave them permission to sue. Dred and Harriet’s complaint was stated that on April 4 Mrs. Emerson had “beat, bruised and ill-treated him” and had then imprisoned them for 12 hours. It also stated that Dred was a “free person” held in slavery unlawfully by the defendant and it claimed damages of 10 dollars. Thus at the beginning of Dred’s lawsuit there were two suits against Mrs. Emerson circulating throughout the Missouri courts (Fehrenbacher 251).
On November 19, 1846 Mrs. Emerson filed a plea of not guilty in answer to Scott’s charge of assault (Hopkins 11).
On June 30 the trial commenced in the long, rectangular room at the west end of the still uncompleted courthouse in St. Louis (Hopkins 12 The task for the Scott’s attorneys seemed fairly simple. They had only to prove that Dred had been taken to reside on free soil and that he was now held as a slave by Mrs. Emerson. However, none of the testimony that was put forth that day proved what everyone knew to be true, that Mrs. Emerson now owned Dred Scott. Justice was swift that day as verdicts were returned on that same day (Fehrenbacher 253 -254).
The Term Paper on Dred Scott Decision Supreme Court
... case. The same cannot be said of Scott v. Sandford. "Dred Scott v.Sandford," wrote Don Fehrenbacher, "was either a genuine suit, or ... in Illinois, was free. Despite these precedents, Mrs. Emerson won the first Scott v.Emerson trial by slipping through a technical ... its extension into America's unorganized territories. The Supreme Court's ruling in Dred Scott v.Sandford helped hasten the arrival of the ...
The decision accomplished the effect that Mrs. Emerson was allowed to keep her slaves for the simple reason that no one had proved that they were her slaves (Fehrenbacher 254).
The Scott’s attorney promptly motioned for a new trial.
By this time it was clear that the determination of the Scott’s to have freedom was matched only by determination of Mrs. Emerson to keep her slaves. After the death of her father in 1848 Mrs. Emerson left St. Louis for Springfield, Massachusetts to live with one of her sisters. At this point John Sanford took over the provisions of his sister’s affairs in St Louis (Fehrenbacher 256).
More than a year and a half elapsed before the second trial was held. This time testimony clearly established that Mrs. Emerson did indeed own the Scott’s. The defense changed its strategy stating that at Forts Armstrong and Snelling, Emerson had been under military jurisdiction and therefore not subject to the laws of civil government that prohibited slavery. The verdict that followed by a matter of course made Dred Scott nominally a free man (Heffner 161).
However times were changing in the United States at that time, slavery was becoming a hotly debated issue. Northern dissatisfaction was growing centered primarily on the Fugitive Slave Act, while Southern concern was centered on the apprehension of antislavery assaults (Hopkins 14).
The Supreme Court judges discussed the drafting of their Dred Scott decision (Fehrenbacher 259).
For months this task was put off, however while this procrastination was occurring the Supreme Court was changing. A recent amendment to the state constitution had changed the court from an appointed body to an elective body (Fehrenbacher 260).
So with the newly elected they set out to render a decision on the Scott case.
On March 22 1852 Judge Scott finally announced the decision of the court, he found that Dred Scott was still a slave and ordered the decision of the lower court reversed. Thus ended the six-year fight to establish Dred Scott’s right for freedom under the laws and in the courts of Missouri (Fehrenbacher 265)
Dred Scott v. Sanford was a suit for freedom; the declaration filed for Scott on November 2, 1853 asserted that he was a citizen of Missouri. It complained that on the preceding January 1, Sanford attacked and wrongfully imprisoned Dred, his wife Harriett and their 2 children. The damages totaled on these three charges totaled 9000 dollars (Fehrenbacher 276).
The Essay on Dredd Scott Court Case Slavery
Dredd Scott America in 1857 was a nation on the brink. Relationship between the North and South had been strained for decades and was only getting worse. All tension had to do with the issues of slavery. In 1848 the U. S. had acquired new lands in the Mexican cession, and the debate was on. The question was whether or not the South should be allowed to spread slavery into the new states. This ...
Sanford replied at the next term in April 1854, he claimed abatement on the grounds that Scott, as a Negro descended from slaves of “pure African blood,” and was not in fact a citizen of Missouri (Fehrenbacher 276).
Sanford’s plea claimed the Scotts as his lawful slaves, asserted that he had “gently laid his hands upon them and restrained them of their liberty as he had the right to do”. Whether Sanford had committed assault and false imprisonment depended entirely on whether the Scotts were free persons or slaves (Howard 55).
For more than a year after it was docketed, the Dred Scott Case waited for the attention of the Supreme Court. While the case was waiting for attention from the Supreme Court it began to receive the attention from newspapers, they awakened to the idea that this might be the most important case in U.S. court history. The first was the Washington Evening Star, which on February 12 declared, “ the Public of Washington do not seem to be aware that one of the most important cases ever brought up for adjudication by the Supreme Court is now tried before the August tribunal.”(Fehrenbacher 288) Only a few papers thus far had given the Dred Scott case anything more than routine attention (Fehrenbacher 291).
The running debate in Congress was well covered by the press, and the discussions spilled over into private conversations of Washington society. Obviously, postponement of the Dred Scott case had not diffused it( Fehrenbacher 293).
Many more people were now aware of what might be a stake in one Negro’s fight for freedom (Fehrenbacher 294).
The Supreme Court of the United States would hear the case for the first time on February 11, 1856. The Judges entered “without any flourish of parade… ranked according to the dates of their respective commissions.” At the head of the procession there walked “with firm and steady step… a tall, thin, man, slightly bent with the weight of years, of pale complexion, and features somewhat careworn, but lighted up at once with that benignant expression which is indicative at once of a gentle temperament and a kindly heart,” Chief Justice Taney. To his right and left were John McLean, of Ohio and James Moore Wayne, of Georgia, respectively (Hopkins 33).
The Essay on Circuit Court Evidence Cases Heard
Process of Law A law trial begins when a party brings suit against another party, or several parties. A request for jurors is sent out, and a list of possible jurors is created. The defendant (s) for both parties may now filter out jurors through the list, in two different ways. The first, For Cause, means a juror is dismissed because they are or were employed by or related to one of the parties. ...
Scott’s attorney argued to the point of Scott’s citizenship at least so far as to enable them to sue in the courts of the United States. He found that the opinion of the majority, ‘that to be a citizen, it is necessary that he (the person so claiming) should be entitled to the enjoyment of those privileges and immunities upon the same terms upon which they are conferred upon other citizens and unless they are so entitled he cannot in the proper senses of the term be a citizen”(Hopkins 33).
Scott’s attorney then challenged the defense, that citizenship was acquired by birth. He felt sure that it could not be proved that free Negroes were not citizens in the limited sense (Hopkins 34 – 35).
He argued whether “Dred and his family were emancipated by being taken to Illinois”. For its dry legal content, the debate in the crowded little courtroom was very political. The defendant’s argument turned frequently to the general vindication of the South and slavery-an institution (Fehrenbacher 302).
Thus the second round of arguments ended and it seemed almost certain that a decision would be handed down before the end of the term (Fehrenbacher 303).
On March 6,1857, the nine judges again filed into their basement courtroom, leading the way as usual was Chief Justice Taney (Hopkins 61).
Taney led off the reading of opinions, in the crowded courtroom. Already fatigued from the work of composition, he spoke in a low voice that became almost inaudible before the end of his two hours (Fehrenbacher 315).
Taney stated,
“A writ or error brought the whole record before the appellate court, which must decide if the facts stated in the plea were sufficient to show that the plaintiff was entitled to sue as a citizen in the courts of the United States (Hopkins 62).
Taney then addressed himself to the question of the citizenship of free Negroes. The question is simply this; “Can a Negro whose ancestors were imported to this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitutions of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed 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 (Howard 9).
The Essay on Federal Vs State Courts
The United States is at the forefront of modern democracy. Its unique three branched system allows the government to operate under a quasi-idealistic form of checks and balances. As outlined by the U.S. Constitution, the judicial branch of government serves as the interpreter of the law and is “one of the most sophisticated judicial systems in the world.”1 This complexity is a product of balance ...
The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people? We think they are not, and that they are not included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim non of the rights and privileges that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at the time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might chose to grant them (Howard 11).
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 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 (Howard 13).
And upon full and careful consideration of the subject the court is of the opinion that, upon the facts stated in the plea of abatement, Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States”.
Thus Chief Justice Taney stated the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States of America (Fehrenbacher 364).
Officially nothing remained now but to wind up the case. An order to the Court of the United States for the district of Missouri was issued by the Supreme Court, informing the court that its decision in the case of Scott vs. Sanford was reversed. Finally, on March 18, 1857 the Scotts as well as being declared slaves were ordered to pay costs. The actual litigation was at an end. The press, the pulpits and politicians, however, took up the war of words where the judges had left it (Hopkins156).
The Dred Scott decision, aside form its revolutionary significance, was also a public act that had important public consequences (Fehrenbacher 561).
The principle reason for the prominence of the decision in American historical writing is the belief that it became a major casual link between the general forces of national disruption and the final crisis of the Union in 1860-61 (Fehrenbacher 562).
The great importance thus attached to the Dred Scott decision by members of the American legal profession in the late twentieth century is extraordinary. No doubt the interest is inspired in some degree by exaggerated estimates of Dred Scott influence on the disruption of the Union. It also reflects the persistence of racial troubles in modern America and the central place of the Civil War in American historical consciousness. But in the long run, Taney’s decision will probably be most significant as an epoch in the growth of American judicial power.
It was Alexis de Tocqueville who wrote long ago: “scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question”(Fehrenbacher 594).Works Cited
Fehrenbacher, Don E. (1978).
The Dred Scott Case. New York: Oxford University Press.
An overview of slavery and the events leading up to the case of Dred Scott vs. Sanford.
Heffner, Richard D. (1999).
A Documentary History of the United States (sixth edition expanded
and updated).
New York: Penguin Putnam Inc.
A brief statement on the fifty four page majority opinion of the Supreme Court as written by
Chief Justice Taney.
Hopkins, Vincent C. (1967).
Dred Scott’s Case. New York: Atheneum.
Dred Scott’s Life prior to the case. The scandal that surrounded Dred Scott. Cultural
repercussions that followed.
Howard, Benjamin C. (1857).
Dred Scott vs. Sanford. Washington: Cornelius Wendell, Printer.
Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Dred Scott
versus Sanford.
