Born into slavery, Dred Scott, along with his wife, Harriet, legally sued for his freedom
in 1846. The Supreme Court decision that followed was one of the sparks that led to civil war.
This is the messed up truth about the Dred Scott case.
Like so many other enslaved people, the exact details of Dred Scott's early life are vague
and hard to uncover. We do know that he was born sometime around 1795 in Virginia. Though
he was born into slavery, it's not clear if the Blow family was the first to claim ownership
over him. However, he did work for them fairly early on in his life. Scott's original name
was allegedly Sam but, upon the death of an older brother, he took the name Dred in his
honor.
Scott would spend a significant portion of his life moving around the country at the
behest of his masters, beginning with the Blow family's move to Huntsville, Alabama.
Family patriarch, Peter Blow, had attempted to farm there but, upon failing, moved to
St. Louis, Missouri. Scott was apparently obliged to move with them as Blow started
running a boarding house. Sometime shortly before or directly after Peter Blow's 1832
death, Scott was then sold to Dr. John Emerson.
Though he was originally a civilian doctor, Emerson would eventually become an assistant
surgeon for the U.S. Army. This meant a move to a posting in Illinois, which was a free
state that had outlawed slavery. Given that Emerson took Dred Scott with him, this move
would eventually form the bedrock of Scott's petition for his freedom.
In 1820 the Missouri Compromise was a national settlement on the matter of slavery. However,
it created more tension over the issue that already had deep political and ethical divides.
The settlement was linked to the westward expansion of Americans into new territory,
and the question of whether or not new territories and states should allow slavery within their
borders.
In 1819, Representative James Tallmadge of New York proposed that Missouri could only
gain statehood if it stopped importing slaves. In addition, all children born to Missouri
slaves would then be free.
Congressional politics struck out Tallmadge's plan, but enough members of the House supported
the move that something had to be done. And so, Speaker of the House, Henry Clay, came
up with what was known as the "Missouri Compromise."
Per Clay's plan, Missouri would be admitted as a slave state, but Maine would be a free
state to effectively balance it all out. Later, adjustments to the plan meant that slavery
was banned in all U.S. lands bought via the Louisiana Purchase. The boundary line happened
to run just south of Missouri. Naturally, the compromise pleased almost no one. In 1854,
it was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Yet, the legacy of the Missouri Compromise
was far from over.
The Missouri Compromise was still very much in effect when Dred Scott moved to the slave
state of Missouri in the 1830s. But, things got complicated when Scott moved to Illinois
with Dr. John Emerson. Illinois was a free state, where slavery was banned.
A second move to the Wisconsin Territory also meant that Scott found himself in yet another
region that had banned slavery. At this point, Scott met and married another enslaved person,
Harriet Robinson.
Harriet's owner transferred the ownership to Emerson, allowing the newlyweds to stay
together. Emerson then hired them out as he went south to Louisiana and eventually got
married. According to the National Park Service, the Scotts were recalled to join Emerson in
St. Louis in 1842.
For much of this time, neither Scott nor his wife, Harriet, formally petitioned for their
freedom, though they had the legal standing to do so. It could be that, with two young
daughters, Dred and Harriet weren't inclined to cause trouble and risk splitting up their
family. They may also have been kept unaware of the Missouri Compromise or how they could
legally petition for their own freedom.
On April 6, 1846, both Dred and Harriet Scott each filed a suit against Irene Emerson, the
widow of Dr. John Emerson and the woman who was probably their owner at the time. The
couple were also arguing for the freedom of their two daughters, Eliza and Lizzie.
The Scotts had apparently been living in St. Louis for much of the time, being hired out
to Emerson family members and other people in the community. However, records of their
movements are incomplete - even in the later court records that made it all the way to
the United States Supreme Court.
There are multiple situations that may have led the Scotts to file at the time that they
did. It could be that Irene Emerson was thinking about selling them, possibly breaking up their
young family in the process. It may even be that Dred had earlier attempted to buy his
freedom from Emerson but that he had been denied.
At the time they filed their suits in 1846, Harriet and Dred Scott were unable to read
or write. And, the U.S. court system was complicated and not for people from all walks of life.
The Scotts were unable to read about the Missouri Compromise and local laws. Plus, they were
unable to write for help, and so they likely wouldn't have known how to gain their freedom
through the courts.
So, to bring their case before a court, the Scotts needed legal help from other people.These
included local St. Louis abolitionists, members of their church, and surprisingly, members
of the Blow family. This is the very same Blow family who had previously owned the Scotts.
Since the time the Blows had sold Dred Scott to when they came back into contact with him,
some family members had begun to move towards the anti-slavery cause.
The original 1846 suits filed at St. Louis' Old Courthouse were only the beginning in
what would prove to be a long and hard road for the Scotts. They lost the first case due
to a technicality, but this 1847 defeat didn't stop the Scotts.
In 1850, The Missouri Supreme Court allowed a second trial, which resulted in the Scotts
being granted freedom. Irene Emerson quickly appealed the decision.
During this time, the Scott family moved between legally "enslaved" and "free." Their status
was perpetually uncertain. But then, the Missouri Supreme Court came down firmly on the side
of Emerson, declaring the Scotts to once again be her property. Furthermore, the court declared
that it would not enforce the rules of free states.
"You aint a free man."
More challenges occurred from there. Some courts went so far as to say that Scott and
his family were not American citizens to begin with, and so didn't have the right to sue
in the first place. Finally, in 1856, the numerous challenges, appeals, and unending
back-and-forth made its way to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Dred Scott v. Sandford was finally reviewed by the Supreme Court in 1856, although, the
justices did not announce their decision until the following year. Many were shaken to hear
that the court ruled against Dred Scott.
The court also declared that all Black Americans were non-citizens. They even said that the
federal government had no right to free slaves or to make legislation concerning the matter.
And so, the court ultimately dismissed in a 7 to 2 majority.
Because Black Americans were supposedly non-citizens, the majority ruling held that a federal court
had no business ruling for or against a non-citizen's claim for freedom. The decision sought to
strip the Scotts of any rights they hoped to have. But, the Supreme Court also declared
the Missouri Compromise invalid.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis asked what the court was doing
by making decisions about the Missouri Compromise. Justice John McClean also chimed in, noting
that the decision didn't make sense, given that Black men had the right to vote in five
states at the time.
A closer look at the individual justices who ruled in the Dred Scott decision uncovers
some potentially serious biases which seem to have influenced the 1857 ruling.
Seven of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by presidents who favored slavery.
A further five were from slave-owning families themselves.
However, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's presents one of the more complicated figures in the
whole affair. Judging from this case, he appears to be pro-slavery, to the point where he would
deny Scott's citizenship. Further, he would consider him and his family to be another
person's property.
Yet, Taney's personal beliefs present a stark contrast to his actions on the bench. He was
devoutly religious, to the point where he believed that slavery was evil and should
eventually be done away with entirely. To that end, Taney had even freed his own slaves
before he became a Supreme Court justice.
But there was another Bias allegedly at work, as historians believe incoming President-elect
James Buchanan secretly pressured the Justices to rule against Scott in what was a massive
ethical and legal breach.
Justice Taney reportedly had hoped the decision to strike down the Missouri Compromise would
settle the slavery debate forever and bring peace to America. Instead, the opposite happened.
In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, abolitionists were incensed. Many Americans
were enraged that Black Americans were anything less than full citizens. And so, the result
of Dred Scott v. Sandford was a stark wake-up call. Meanwhile, those who supported the institution
of slavery celebrated.
And, all the while, the divide between the two groups was growing ever wider and more
violent. This was also the time of "Bleeding Kansas," which was the ongoing conflict from
1855 to 1859 between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the Kansas territory.
It was a dramatically violent conflict, to the point where even lawmakers in Washington,
D.C. came to blows over the matter. In 1856 South Carolina Representative Preston Brooks
beat Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner with a cane on the floor of the Senate, leaving
Sumner bleeding and unconscious. The incident, rather predictably, led to even further polarization
on both sides.
This tumult led anti-slavery northerners to nominate Abraham Lincoln as Republican candidate.
He then won election to the White House. Eventually, the growing divide and Lincoln's presence
at the seat of government led to the secession of the south from the rest of the nation.
And, this was the beginning of the American Civil War.
After the Supreme Court decision, Scott, his wife, and two daughters were considered property
again. But Irene Sandford had re-married her second husband, Dr. Calvin Chaffee, who was
an abolitionist. He was also pretty unhappy about being associated with one of the most
dramatic and controversial cases to make it to the U.S. Supreme Court. It didn't help
that he was both an abolitionist and, thanks to his marriage, the newest owner of Dred
Scott.
So, shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its non-decision, Chaffee leaned on his
wife to free the Scott family.
The Chaffees quickly transferred ownership of the Scotts to Taylor Blow of the St. Louis
Blow family. This was the same family that had previously owned Scott decades ago. Missouri
state law, at the time, had made it so that only state residents could free slaves there.
Taylor Blow quickly freed them and the St. Louis Circuit Court made it official on May
26, 1857.
As a free man, Scott found work as a hotel porter. Then, in September 1858, he died of
tuberculosis. Harriet lived until June 1876, though the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation,
and the 13th and 14th Amendments. These two amendments abolished slavery and gave citizenship
rights to all people born in the United States, respectively. The descendants of Dred and
Harriet Scott still live in the St. Louis area to this day.
Check out one of our newest videos right here! Plus, even more Grunge videos about your favorite stuff are coming soon.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit the bell so you don't miss a single one.