This action overturned 28 years of precedent in Missouri. That jury also ruled in favor of Scott!Ģ years later, Irene Emerson appealed the verdict and the Missouri Supreme Court struck down the lower court ruling. At this trial, evidence was produced that established Emerson was indeed the owner of Scott. However, the judge set a retrial which started in January of 1850. Emerson was hearsay and therefore not established. Here the case takes an unusual turn as the court ruled against the Scotts on the basis that the ownership of the Scotts by Mrs. Bay at one time was a Missouri legislator and later Attorney General. Louis and Samuel M Bay was now the Scott’s lawyer. However, by the time the trial started, Drake had moved away from St. The lawyers changed during the trial, starting with Francis B Murdoch and later Charles D Drake. The case had been filed a year before it was tried in 1847 in the federal-state courthouse in St. Louis, Missouri and Harriet Scott was an active church goer and her pastor was an abolitionist and connected the Scotts to their first lawyer. The action of seeking freedom was necessary as the 2 children of the Scotts were nearing the age of 10, which was the age when slaves became more valuable and the owners frequently sold them, breaking up families.Īt this time, the Scotts were living in St. The Scotts had lived for 2 years in the free states and in addition, their first-born child was born between a free state and a free territory. This doctrine was popularly known as “Once free, always free”. His grounds were sound as in 1824, Missouri had established precedent holding that slaves freed through prolonged residence in a free state would remain free when taken back to Missouri. However, Irene Emerson refused, and Scott was forced to resort to seek a legal remedy. In 1846, Dred Scott offered to purchase his and his family’s freedom. Since the Scotts were her property, she continued to lease them as hired slaves. When Emerson died in 1843, his widow Irene inherited the estate and the Scotts being considered not as people, but property they were transferred to her. While on their way, Harriet Scott gave birth while between the free state of Illinois and the Iowa district of Wisconsin Territory.Įmerson returned to Missouri in 1840 with the Scotts. In 1838, Emerson sent for Scott to join him in Fort Jesup, located in Louisiana. In 1837 Emerson was assigned to a different location but left Scott behind, leased to others. Nevertheless, Taliaferro transferred Harriet, now Scott to Emerson, Dred’s owner, who treated the Scotts as slaves. This would play an integral part of the case to be discussed later, since slave marriages had no legal sanction, Scott’s supporters would later point to the ceremony as evidence that Scott was being treated as a free man. The unusual part of this is that slaves were not normally given the civil ceremony of marriage presided over by a justice of the peace, which Taliaferro was. Here is an unusual event in that Scott met and married a slave named Harriet Robinson and was married by Lawrence Taliaferro, Harriet’s owner. In 1837 Emerson moved to Fort Snelling which is in what is now Minnesota, a free territory at the time. In 1836, Emerson moved to Fort Armstrong in the free state of Illinois. As a member of the US Army, Emerson moved frequently to various parts of the growing country. John Emerson a surgeon serving in the United States Army, for some reason, Scott developed a strong dislike for Emerson. Louis, Missouri with their 6 slaves which included Dred.Īs with property, Dred Scott was sold to Dr. When the Blow family gave up farming, they moved to St. These events are an integral part of the history of the case and the reader should take note.ĭred was born a slave and the story starts with him being owned by Peter Blow in Alabama. In any event, Dred was sold to several owners and moved several times. There is even question about his birth name, with some saying that he was born with the name of Sam, but that was changed to Etheldred, the name of a brother who had died. This is not unusual as record keeping during this period was not exact and there was less precision and need when it came to slaves. The exact date of his birth is not known but has variously been reported as being between 1795 to 1800. The decision was shocking and has been described as “The worse case ever decided by the United States Supreme Court” and as “The courts worst self-inflected wound”. Dred Scott v Stanford – Important History Making Caseĭred Scott was the center of a very important case involving slavery in America and was in part a cause of the American Civil War.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |