[Author’s Name]
[Institution’s Name]
Essay on Dred Scott
Dred Scott was born into slavery in Virginia in about 1800. His possessor, Peter Blow, moved to St. Louis in 1830, where he sold Scott to John Emerson, a U.S. Army doctor. During 1836 Emerson and Scott moved to Fort Snelling, an army post in what is now Minnesota, and what was then in region that banned slavery under the Missouri Compromise. At Fort Snelling, Scott married Harriet Robinson, who was also a slave. In 1837 Emerson left Fort Snelling for Jefferson Barracks close to St. Louis. Scott and his wife stayed behind in Fort Snelling, but later joined Emerson in 1838. The Scotts in due course returned to St. Louis with Emerson in 1840. In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued to gain liberty for himself, his wife, Harriet, and their two children. Scott argued that living at Fort Snelling had made him and his family liberated, and once free they remained free, even after returning to Missouri. In January of 1850, a panel of adjudicators of 12 white men on the St. Louis Circuit Court fulfilled that Scott’s two years of residence in a free state and a free terrain made him free.
On the other hand, in 1852 the Missouri Supreme Court reversed this decision, claiming that due to Northern resentment toward slavery, Missouri would no longer recognize federal or state laws that might have emancipated Scott. In 1854 Scott turned to the federal courts and renewed his quest for freedom in the U.S. Circuit Court in Missouri. Scott’s owner at this time was Emerson’s brother-in-law, John F. A. Sanford, who argued that blacks could never be citizens of the United States and therefore could never sue in federal court. (Due to a clerical error Sanford’s name was misspelled in court documents.) Federal Judge Robert Wells ruled that if Scott was free he was entitled to sue in federal court as a citizen.....
