Dred Scott Case

1367 Words6 Pages
Slavery had been a debate for years in our country. It presented supporters and people that were opposed to it. This situation had left many people with questions. One question being “how should fugitives from slavery be treated in jurisdictions where slavery was illegal?” and a second question of which was “ should a slave be brought into a free state by his master and be viewed as free ?” The first question was answered partially in Article IV, section II of the constitution and by the Fugitive Slave Act. Nonetheless the second question still is yet to be answered. Who was Dred Scott ?. Dred Scott (1795-1858) was an enslaved man in Missouri of one hundred percent pure African descent. Scott was a slave who was owned by United States Army surgeon John Emerson.Emerson lived in Missouri , a state that permitted slavery. His owner moved to Illinois in 1834, which at the time was a free state and slavery was prohibited by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. They later moved to Wisconsin where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise. Years later , John Emerson passed away and Scott returned to Missouri . Three years later in 1837 ,Scott and his wife sued John Emerson's widow for what all slaves wanted ,their freedom. Dred Scott claimed he was a free man because he resided in free states, Illinois and Wisconsin.As it states in Article IV of the constituion states that any slave who sets foot in a free land , makes them a free man . A state circuit court ruled in Scotts favor but then the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the decision. During the time the case was going on , Scott became property of Mrs. Emersons brother John F. Sanford of New York State. Since Sanford did not live in Missouri, Scott’s legal team of anti slavery lawyers were able to transfer the case to federal court and then on to the Supreme court. When the case arose in the supreme court
Open Document