Editing Dred Scott (section)

== Life ==
[[File:Dred & Harriet Scott Quarters.jpg|thumb|right|Dred and Harriet Scott's restored quarters at [[Fort Snelling]]]]
Dred Scott was born into slavery {{circa|1799}} in [[Southampton County, Virginia]]. It is not clear whether Dred was his given name or a shortened form of Etheldred.<ref name=":0">{{cite book|last=VanderVelde|first=Lea|url=https://archive.org/details/mrsdredscottlife00vand_0|title=Mrs. Dred Scott: A Life on Slavery's Frontier|date=January 20, 2009|publisher=Oxford University Press, US|isbn=978-0199710645|pages=134–136|url-access=registration}}</ref>

In 1818, Dred was taken by Peter Blow and his family, with their five other slaves, to Alabama, where the family ran an unsuccessful farm in a location near [[Huntsville, Alabama|Huntsville]]. This site is now occupied by [[Oakwood University]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.deepfriedkudzu.com/2011/02/dred-scott-and-oakwood-university.html|title=Dred Scott, And Oakwood University |date=February 22, 2011|website=Deepfriedkudzu.com|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/04/a_catalyst_for_civil_war_after.html|title=A catalyst for Civil War after suing for freedom, slave Dred Scott once lived in Huntsville|website=Blog.al.com|date=April 15, 2011|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.hsvcity.com/gis/historicmarkers/site/marker_069/page.htm|title=Huntsville, Alabama &#124; G.I.S. Division &#124; Historic Markers Site|date=January 19, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150119214552/http://www.hsvcity.com/gis/historicmarkers/site/marker_069/page.htm |archive-date=January 19, 2015 }}</ref> The Blows gave up farming in 1830 and moved to [[St. Louis, Missouri]].<ref name="Missouri Digital Heritage">{{Cite web|title = Dred Scott Case, 1846–1857|url=https://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/resources/africanamerican/scott/scott.asp|website = Missouri Digital Heritage|access-date = July 16, 2015}}</ref>

Dred Scott was sold to Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon serving in the [[United States Army]], who planned to move to [[Rock Island, Illinois]]. Blow died in 1832, and historians debate whether Scott was sold to Emerson before or after Blow's death. Some believe that Scott was sold in 1831, while others point to a number of enslaved people in Blow's estate who were sold to Emerson after Blow's death, including one with a name given as Sam, who may be the same person as Scott.<ref name="Erlich1979">For a longer discussion, see Ehrlich, 1979. chapter 1, or more recently see, Swain, 2004. p. 91</ref> After Scott learned of this sale, he attempted to run away. His decision to do so was spurred by a distaste he had developed for Emerson. Scott was temporarily successful in his escape as he, much like many other runaway slaves during this time period, "never tried to distance his pursuers, but dodged around among his fellow slaves as long as possible". Eventually, he was captured in the "[[Lucas, Missouri|Lucas Swamps]]" of Missouri and taken back.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=U-M Weblogin|journal=Cincinnati Enquirer |id = {{ProQuest|881879875}} }}</ref>

As an army officer, Emerson moved frequently, taking Scott with him to each new army posting. In 1833, Emerson and Scott went to [[Fort Armstrong, Illinois|Fort Armstrong]], in the [[Slave and free states|free state]] of Illinois. In 1837, Emerson took Scott to [[Fort Snelling]], in what is now the state of [[Minnesota]] and was then in the free [[Wisconsin Territory|territory of Wisconsin]]. There, Scott met and married [[Harriet Robinson Scott|Harriet Robinson]], a slave owned by [[Lawrence Taliaferro]]. The marriage was formalized in a civil ceremony presided over by Taliaferro, who was a [[justice of the peace]]. Since slave marriages had no legal sanction, supporters of Scott later noted that this ceremony was evidence that Scott was being treated as a free man. But Taliaferro transferred ownership of Harriet to Emerson, who treated the Scotts as his slaves.<ref name="Missouri Digital Heritage" />

Dr. Emerson was transferred to [[Fort Jesup]] in Louisiana in 1837, leaving the Scott family behind at Fort Snelling and leasing them out (also called hiring out) to other officers.<ref name="Missouri Digital Heritage" /> In February 1838, Emerson met and married Eliza Irene Sanford in Louisiana, whereupon he sent for the Scotts to join him, only to be reassigned to Fort Snelling later that year.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /> While on a steamboat heading north on the Mississippi River, north of Missouri, Harriet Scott gave birth to their first child, whom they named Eliza.<ref name=":0" /> They later had a daughter, Lizzie. They also had two sons, but neither survived past infancy.<ref name="Missouri Digital Heritage" />

The Emersons and Scotts returned to Missouri, a slave state, in 1840. In 1842, Emerson left the Army. After he died in the Iowa Territory in 1843, his widow Irene inherited his estate, including the Scotts. For three years after Emerson's death, she continued to lease out the Scotts as hired slaves. In 1846, Scott attempted to purchase his and his family's freedom, offering $300 (${{Inflation|index=US|value=300|start_year=1846|r=0|fmt=c|cursign=$}} adjusted for inflation).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html|title=Dred Scott's fight for freedom: 1846–1857|work=Africans in America: People & Events|publisher=PBS|access-date=March 26, 2012}}</ref> Irene Emerson refused the offer. Scott and his wife separately filed freedom suits to try to gain their freedom and that of their daughters. The cases were later combined by the courts.<ref name="Fehrenbacher 2001">{{cite book |first=Don Edward |last=Fehrenbacher |title=The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics |year=2001 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0195145885}}{{page needed|date=April 2015}}</ref>

=== Summary ===
{{multiple image
 | align = right
 | direction = vertical
 | width = 240
 | header =
 | image1 = Dred Scott and Harriet Scott wood engravings after photographs by Fitzgibbon.jpg
 | alt1 =
 | caption1 =
 | image2 = Eliza and Lizzie, children of Dred Scott.jpg
 | alt2 =
 | caption2 = The case centered on Dred and Harriet Scott (top) and their children, Eliza and Lizzie.
}}
The Scotts' cases were first heard by the Missouri circuit court. The first court upheld the precedent of "once free, always free". That is, because the Scotts had been held voluntarily for an extended period by their owner in a free territory, which provided for slaves to be freed under such conditions, the court ruled, they had gained their freedom. The owner appealed. In 1852 the Missouri supreme court overruled this decision, on the basis that the state did not have to abide by free states' laws, especially given the anti-slavery fervor of the time. It said that Scott should have filed for freedom in the Wisconsin Territory.

Scott ended up filing a freedom suit in federal court (see below for details), in a case that he appealed to the US Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that African descendants were not U.S. citizens and had no standing to sue for freedom. It also ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. This was the last in a series of [[freedom suit]]s from 1846 to 1857, that began in Missouri courts, and were heard by lower federal district courts. The US Supreme Court overturned the earlier precedents and established new limitations on African Americans.

=== In detail ===
In 1846, having failed to purchase his freedom, Scott filed a freedom suit in St. Louis Circuit Court. Missouri precedent, dating to 1824, had held that slaves freed through prolonged residence in a free state or territory, where the law provided for slaves to gain freedom under such conditions, would remain free if returned to Missouri. The doctrine was known as "Once free, always free". Scott and his wife had resided for two years in free states and free territories, and his eldest daughter had been born on the Mississippi River, between a free state and a free territory.<ref name="Finkelman, Paul 2007">{{cite journal |last=Finkelman |first= Paul |url= http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3570&context=cklawreview |format=PDF |title= Scott v. Sandford: The Court's Most Dreadful Case and How it Changed History |volume=82 |issue=3 |pages=3–48 |journal=Chicago-Kent Law Review |year=2007}}</ref>

Dred Scott was listed as the only [[plaintiff]] in the case, but his wife, Harriet, had filed separately and their cases were combined. She played a critical role, pushing him to pursue freedom on behalf of their family. She was a frequent churchgoer, and in St. Louis, her church pastor (a well-known [[Abolitionism|abolitionist]]) connected the Scotts to their first lawyer. The Scott children were around the age of ten when the case was originally filed. The Scotts were worried that their daughters might be sold.<ref>{{Cite web |url= https://www.gilderlehrman.org/multimedia#!60079 |title= Multimedia {{!}} The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History |website= Gilderlehrman.org |language= en |access-date= March 16, 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20171011062735/http://gilderlehrman.org/multimedia#!60079 |archive-date= October 11, 2017 |url-status= dead }}</ref>

The ''Scott v. Emerson'' case was tried by the state in 1847 in the [[Old Courthouse (St. Louis, Missouri)|federal-state courthouse]] in St. Louis. Scott's lawyer was originally [[Francis B. Murdoch]] and later [[Charles D. Drake]]. As more than a year elapsed from the time of the initial petition filing until the trial, Drake had moved away from St. Louis during that time. [[Samuel M. Bay]] tried the case in court.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|last=Ehrlich|first=Walter|title=They Have No Rights: Dred Scott's Struggle for Freedom|publisher=Applewood Books|year=2007|pages=20, 25}}</ref> The verdict went against Scott, as testimony that established his ownership by Mrs. Emerson was ruled to be hearsay. But the judge called for a retrial, which was not held until January 1850. This time, direct evidence was introduced that Emerson owned Scott, and the jury ruled in favor of Scott's freedom.

Irene Emerson appealed the verdict. In 1852, the Missouri Supreme Court struck down the lower court ruling, arguing that, because of the free states' anti-slavery fervor was encroaching on Missouri, the state no longer had to defer to the laws of free states.<ref>[https://www.scribd.com/doc/101464818/Scott-v-Emerson-15-Missouri-Reports-576-1852 Scott v. Emerson, 15 Mo. 576, 586 (Mo. 1852)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131213000335/http://www.scribd.com/doc/101464818/Scott-v-Emerson-15-Missouri-Reports-576-1852 |date=December 13, 2013 }} Retrieved August 20, 2012. The Emersons were represented by [[Hugh A. Garland]] and [[Lyman Decatur Norris]].</ref> By this decision, the court overturned 28 years of precedent in Missouri. Justice [[Hamilton R. Gamble]], who was later appointed as governor of Missouri, sharply disagreed with the majority decision and wrote a dissenting opinion.

In 1853, Scott again sued for his freedom, this time under federal law. Irene Emerson had moved to Massachusetts, and Scott had been transferred to Irene Emerson's brother, [[John F. A. Sanford]]. Because Sanford was a citizen of New York, while Scott would be a citizen of Missouri if he were free, the Federal courts had [[diversity jurisdiction]] over the case.<ref>Randall, J. G., and David Donald. ''A House Divided. The Civil War and Reconstruction''. 2nd ed. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1961, pp. 107–114.</ref> After losing again in federal district court, the Scotts appealed to the [[United States Supreme Court]] in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]''. (The name is spelled "Sandford" in the court decision due to a clerical error.)

On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice [[Roger B. Taney]] delivered the majority opinion. Taney ruled, with three major issues, that:

# Any person descended from Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States, according to the [[U.S. Constitution]].
# The [[Ordinance of 1787]] could not confer either freedom or citizenship within the Northwest Territory to non-white individuals.
# The provisions of the Act of 1820, known as the [[Missouri Compromise]], were voided as a legislative act, since the act exceeded the powers of Congress, insofar as it attempted to exclude slavery and impart freedom and citizenship to non-white persons in the northern part of the [[Louisiana Purchase]].<ref>{{cite news |url= https://nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0306.html#article |title= Decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case |work= The New York Daily Times |location= New York |date=March 7, 1857 |access-date= May 26, 2011}}</ref>

The Court had ruled that African Americans had no claim to freedom or citizenship. Since they were not citizens, they did not possess the legal standing to bring suit in a federal court. As slaves were private property, Congress did not have the power to regulate slavery in the territories and could not revoke a slave owner's rights based on where he lived. This decision nullified the essence of the Missouri Compromise, which divided territories into jurisdictions either free or slave. Speaking for the majority, Taney ruled that because Scott was considered the private property of his owners, he was subject to the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution]], prohibiting the taking of property from its owner "without due process".<ref name="test">[http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2007/1/2007_1_72.shtml Frederic D. Schwarz] {{webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20081203175055/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2007/1/2007_1_72.shtml |date=December 3, 2008 }} "The Dred Scott Decision", ''American Heritage'', February/March 2007.</ref>

Rather than settling issues, as Taney had hoped, the court's ruling in the Scott case increased tensions between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in both North and South, further pushing the country toward the brink of civil war. Ultimately after the [[American Civil War|Civil War]], on July 9, 1868, the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment to the Constitution]] settled the issue of Black citizenship via Section 1 of that Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside&nbsp;..."<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1353/cat.2002.0072 |first=Patrick W. |last=Carey |title=Political Atheism: Dred Scott, Roger Brooke Taney, and Orestes A. Brownson |journal= The Catholic Historical Review |date=April 2002 |volume=88 |issue=2 |pages=207–229 |publisher=The Catholic University of America Press |s2cid=153950640 |issn= 1534-0708 }}</ref>