Slavery was a big issue in the 1800’s. While the United States was split in two between the North and the South, there were states and territories that were designated for slaves and states and territories that were for slaves that wanted freedom. If a slave was to actually make it into one of these “free” states, they were basically considered free unless they were captured or forced back to the slave owner they belonged to. However, while the slaves who made it to these distinct areas were “free”, there were instances where that was simply not the case. One instance that is more prevalent than the others was the case of Dred Scott. Dred Scott was a man born into slavery who tried to gain his freedom many times because he lived in a “free”
…show more content…
Dred Scott a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin. Later, Scott then moved back to the slave state of Missouri. The case focused on whether Dred Scott became a free man by staying in free territory and whether he was considered a Missouri citizen to even make a claim in federal court. Dred Scott, owner Dr. John Emerson worked as an assistant surgeon in the U.S army. Emerson took Scott to St. Louis, Missouri to Fort Armstrong in Illinois a free state where Emerson was stationed at. Emerson was later on transferred to Wisconsin. The Missouri Compromise made Wisconsin a free state of slavery. So Dred Scott should be considered free? Well let’s see. During Scott’s time in the Free states which he lived in he married Harriet Robinson. In 1846 Dred and Harriet filed for freedom against Mrs. Emerson who was now in charge of the two after her husband John. Their claim was that they lived in the free territories for so long that they should be considered free. In 1850, a state judge declared Dred Scott and his wife free. However, Mrs. Emerson then left her brother John F. Sanford in charge and Sanford appealed the ruling of the Missouri Supreme Court. The ruling of Dred Scott and Harriet was overturned in 1852. Scott then filed another lawsuit this time in federal court. This was the beginning of the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. According to Sandford’s attorney, Scott had no right to sue but the jury returned a verdict against him. Scott appealed the verdict and the case was now pushed to the U.S Supreme Court. Here’s where it gets interesting. The question of the Supreme Court in this specific case was the question of Scott’s citizenship and the living of slaves in free territories. What did Taney rule at the end of the trail? Taney ruled that blacks were not citizens of the United States. Taney
Dred Scott a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin. Later, Scott then moved back to the slave state of Missouri. The case focused on whether Dred Scott became a free man by staying in free territory and whether he was considered a Missouri citizen to even make a claim in federal court. Dred Scott, owner Dr. John Emerson worked as an assistant surgeon in the U.S army. Emerson took Scott to St. Louis, Missouri to Fort Armstrong in Illinois a free state where Emerson was stationed at. Emerson was later on transferred to Wisconsin. The Missouri Compromise made Wisconsin a free state of slavery. So Dred Scott should be considered free? Well let’s see. During Scott’s time in the Free states which he lived in he married Harriet Robinson. In 1846 Dred and Harriet filed for freedom against Mrs. Emerson who was now in charge of the two after her husband John. Their claim was that they lived in the free territories for so long that they should be considered free. In 1850, a state judge declared Dred Scott and his wife free. However, Mrs. Emerson then left her brother John F. Sanford in charge and Sanford appealed the ruling of the Missouri Supreme Court. The ruling of Dred Scott and Harriet was overturned in 1852. Scott then filed another lawsuit this time in federal court. This was the beginning of the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. According to Sandford’s attorney, Scott had no right to sue but the jury returned a verdict against him. Scott appealed the verdict and the case was now pushed to the U.S Supreme Court. Here’s where it gets interesting. The question of the Supreme Court in this specific case was the question of Scott’s citizenship and the living of slaves in free territories. What did Taney rule at the end of the trail? Taney ruled that blacks were not citizens of the United States. Taney