# data[].attributes.body
Michaela Jones

United States History 1301 Research Paper

December 7, 2017

Slavery is founded in the selfishness of a man’s nature – opposition to it is his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks and throes and convulsions must ceaselessly follow. –Abraham Lincoln. Dred Scott, a slave from Virginia sued his master for keeping him and his family as slaves in a free state. On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that slaves were not considered citizens, so they did not have the right to sue or have the law on their side (Library of Congress, 2017).[1] During this time, it is understandable on why the supreme court agreed with this decision[G1] . Consequently, the decision was one of the major factors that led America to the Civil War.[G2]

Dred Scott was born in 1795 in Southampton County, Virginia by the name of Sam to his master Peter Blow. Blow and his slaves moved to Alabama and then St. Louis, Missouri in 1830. In 1832 Blow died and Scott was sold to an Army surgeon, Dr. John Emerson. From December 1, 1833 to May 4, 1836, Dr. Emerson served as the post physician at Fort Armstrong, Illinois and carried Scott along with him. Although in Illinois slavery was prohibited, Scott remained a slave (Urofsky, 2017).[2] Dr. Emerson carried Scott with him through numerous Northwest Territories which were considered anti-slavery states (Wallance, 2006).[3] In 1836, Dr. Emerson allowed Scott to marry a slave, Harriet Robinson, and her ownership was then transferred to Dr. Emerson. Dr. Emerson later got transferred to Louisiana where he met and married Eliza Irene Sandford[G3] . Later, Dr. Emerson sent for his slaves. The Scotts began their journey traveling down the Mississippi River through many places that prohibited slavery; forbidden by The Missouri Compromise of 1820 to reach Louisiana where they were going to meet Emerson in late April. In December of 1843, Dr. Emerson abruptly died leaving his estate including his slaves to his widow, Irene Sanford. The Scotts worked for three years as hired slaves, giving all their earnings to Irene. Scott offered numerous times to buy himself from her only to be rejected persistently. In April of 1846, Scott began legal proceedings that would change the course of America forever[G4]  (Urofsky, 2017).[4]

Dred Scott began with a small court case of Emerson Vs Scott in the St. Louis County Circuit Court that lasted from April 6, 1846 to January 12, 1859, which he lost the first trial but won the second. However, Irene appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court and they overturned the previous court’s decision (Vianney, 2017)[5]. After a decade of fighting John Sanford, Irene Emerson’s brother claimed all the slaves to be his own, so Scott began to sue him instead of Irene. On May 15, 1854, Scott's case goes to trial in the Supreme Court in favor of John Sanford and finally on February 11, 1856 the first argument is stated before the Supreme court. In addition, two months later in Lawrence, Kansas, John Brown[G5]  a radical abolitionist, murders five proslavery men in the Pottawatomie Massacre and then Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts is beaten half to death by Preston Brooks with a cane because of Sumner’s anti-slavery remarks. Currently, slavery is becoming a big problem between the North and the South[G6] , the division between the nation was becoming more evident. Scott began to gain so much recognition from the case that created a shift in the nation. On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that, “In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument...They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."(Taney, 1857)[6] Roger B. Taney ruled that slaves could not sue in the supreme court because they were not considered citizens, which repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Supreme Court ruled the document to be unconstitutional. At that moment the nation was greatly divided, slaveholders in the South took Scott's lost as a win for their way of life, but the abolitionist in the North were incredibly outraged. [G7] During the trial and even after the trial, Scott’s legal fees were paid by the sons of his original owner, Peter Blow. Even though the Scotts did not get their freedom through the courts, Irene accepted $750 dollars for their release. Irene later re-married, Dr. Calvin Chaffee who was an abolitionist Massachusetts Congressman and he arranged for the transfer of the Scott's ownership. Unfortunately, Dred Scott did not have much time to enjoy his freedom because he died nine months later, on September 17, 1858. However, Harriet Scott raised their four children until her death on June 17, 1876 (Wallance, 2006)[7].[G8] [G9]

Although the infamous Dred Scott case was over, this case created a wildfire for abolitionist and the soon to be confederacy. This case is one of the leading causes of the Civil War, it became a landmark that showed where the U.S. government stood on the topic of slavery (Richmond Enquirer, 1857).[8] The effects began to show with the Bleeding Kansas that lasted from 1854 to 1859. Bleeding Kansas was a mini Civil War that was fought between proslavery and anti-slavery crusaders for the open territory of Kansas, which was under popular sovereignty. Over 200 people died during Bleeding Kansas, but resulted in Kansas coming in as a free state (Britannica, 1998)[9]. To add more fuel to the fire, John Brown, a radical abolitionist attempted a raid on an arsenal in Harper’s Ferry, West Virginia to arm slaves with weapons to kill as many slave owners as possible. Consequently, all of John Brown’s followers were killed including his two sons, but Brown was captured by Robert E. Lee and later tried and hung on December 2, 1859. Currently, Abraham Lincoln, an up and rising lawyer from Illinois runs against Stephen Douglass who was a proslavery advocate for the senate seat. In 1858, Lincoln and Douglass become well known for their debates (Dr. May,2017)[10]. Douglass brings up Lincoln’s moral code of thinking slavery was wrong because Lincoln believed that the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision was wrongly decided, however Lincoln was never an abolitionist. Lincoln lost to Douglass against the senate seat, but in 1860 Lincoln faces Douglass again but in a presidential election and wins. On December 20, 1860, the South was officially fed up with the fact they had an anti-slavery president that was putting their ways of life in danger, so they succeeded from the United States, starting with South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and lastly, Texas (Dr. May 2017)[11]. Consequently, the Civil War began April 12, 1861 and was one of the deadliest wars calculated for decades until World War 2 in 1939 (White, 2010)[12]

The Dred Scott decision was wrong for the temporary, but I believe if the decision had gone any differently, African Americans would still be bound by slavery and their codes. Taney intended for his decision to be a chain for the common negro, but, he led America to a war that gave African Americans’ freedom to live at peace with themselves and many others. The South tried to keep them chained but they fought long and hard to make their dreams of freedom become a reality.

Bibliography

"Primary Documents in American History." Dred Scott v. Sandford: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress). Accessed December 10, 2017. https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/DredScott.html.

Wallance, Gregory J. "Dred Scott." HistoryNet. 2006. Accessed December 09, 2017. http://www.historynet.com/dred-scott.

Urofsky, Melvin I. "Dred Scott." Encyclopedia Britannica. August 08, 2017. Accessed December 09, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Dred-Scott.

Taney, Roger B. ""No rights which the white man was bound to respect."." “No rights which the white man was bound to respect.”. Accessed December 10, 2017. http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/03/no-rights-which-white-man-was-bound-to.html.

Lab, Digital Scholarship. "The History Engine." History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes. March 10, 1857. Accessed December 10, 2017. https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/2611.

"Primary Documents in American History." Dred Scott v. Sandford: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress). Accessed December 10, 2017. https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/DredScott.html.

The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "Bleeding Kansas." Encyclopædia Britannica. July 20, 1998. Accessed December 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/event/Bleeding-Kansas-United-States-history.

White, Matthew. "Worst American This or That." Twentieth Century Atlas - Casualty Statistics - United States. December 2010. Accessed December 10, 2017. http://necrometrics.com/warsusa.htm.

[1] Library of Congress, 2017[2] Melvin I. Urofsky,[3] Gregory J. Wallance, 2006[4] Melvin I. Urofsky, 2017[5] Vianney, 2017[6] Roger B. Taney, 1857[7] Gregory J. Wallance, 2006[8] Richmond Enquirer, 1857[9] Editors at Britannica, 1998[10] Dr. Meredith May, 2017[11] Dr. Meredith May, 2017[12] Matthew White, 2010

# data[].attributes.body
IDK WHICH ONE YOU WANTED TO HERE IS BOTH

# data[].attributes.body
Here is a editorial response from the New York Tribune to the Dred Scott Case March 12, 1857

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Editorial response of the New York TRIBUNE to the Dred Scott decision, 12 March 1857

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION

The Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, issued in March 1857, held that African Americans were not, and never could be, citizens of the United States. It also overturned the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (already repealed by Congress), which had outlawed slavery in some of the territories. The Court held that the Constitution protected slaveholders' property interests in their slaves, and that Congress therefore could not prohibit slavery in the territories. The decision inflamed growing tensions between the North and South over the issues of slavery and the balance of power between the states and federal government. Here, the TRIBUNE of New York -- a Republican and abolitionist northern newspaper -- responds to the decision.

TRANSCRIPT

Divers newspapers of the Democratic and Dark-Lantern species are howling grievously at the audacity of those free people who dare to doubt the omniscience, the infallibility and the absolute disinterestedness of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States; and we are sorry to say that here and there a journal, from which we had a right to expect a manlier course, is weak enough to be deluded into the language of acquiescence. It is assumed that Judges, because they are Judges, must always be in the right; that they are so far elevated above the level of ordinary mortality that we not only must not question -- nay more, that it is absolutely treason to question the correctness of their decisions; that all we have now to do is to fold our hands and submit without a murmur. Our readers have ere this discovered that we are under the control of no such abject idolatry; that we regard even that awful creature, a Chief-Justice, as a human being, and that we do not mean to submit slavishly to fraud and usurpation because the ermine is interposed to cloak their character. If there be any censure to bestow, let it fall, in the name of the eternal equities, upon those who have dragged their official robes in the kennels of slave-breeding politics! When we are ready to surrender sense and reason, conscience and intellect, and all pretension to mental and physical freedom; when we are ready to beslaver Bombast with praise, and to write the panegyric of the little Napoleon; then, and not till then, will we get on our knees to Roger Taney.

The acquiescent gentlemen say nothing very original -- nothing, in fact, which has not been uttered in all ages by the apologists of bad judges the spaniels of despotic courts. "This is the law," they say, "and to the law you must submit." This might be very conclusive if we were Medes or Persians; of if a judicial decision had never been reversed, and was incapable of revision. "What do you intend to do about it?" chimes in chorus the whole pack. That is a fair question, and we will answer it plainly. We mean to show that this Dred Scott decision is deficient in every element which should entitle it to respect -- that it violates the truth of history and the logic even of the law; and in our humble way, we mean to assist in getting it overruled. If that be justice, our carping critics must make the most of it. It is a treason in which Justices McLean and Curtis are equally implicated with ourselves. Both these gentlemen -- and more rigorously conservative judges never existed -- said distinctly that they did not consider the decisions of the Court to be binding upon questions not legitimately before it. The opinions of both these able men are before the public, and we do not believe that a single unprejudiced lawyer, who values in the least his professional reputation, would deny that the dissent of three judges is sustained in a way which does not leave the slaveholding magistrates a leg to stand upon. If we must admire and praise Supreme Justices, we prefer to be allowed to use our own discretion, and when tribunals differ, to select the side which shall have our support.

One would think, to read this fulsome flummery in the newspapers, that there had never been such a phenomenon as an unjust judge, whereas there is not a schoolboy who does not know that history is full of them -- that even in English annals corrupt tribunals have been the rule and not the exception -- that Bacon took bribes, that the Judges of the last Stuarts were cruel, oppressive and venal to the last degree, and that ever since the accession of the House of Hanover, there has been more than one Judge as heartless and tyrannical as he dared to be. There are, indeed, the Hales, the Holts, the Mansfields, and noble exceptions do they furnish; but there too are the Scroggs, the Jeffreys, the Eldens and the Norburys. The State trials of England are black with judicial insolence, ferocity and oppression. Is anybody deterred now from saying what he thinks of these monsters by the fact that they wore the regulation robes and wigs? And must we, while contemplating a great crime, hold our peace because those who have committed it happen to be living?

The position of an upright Judge who tempers the austerities of the law, and who has the heart to appreciate the large opportunities of his vocation, is one which is entitled to the respect of all good men. But a bad, a narrow-minded, a passionate or a prejudiced Judge, is the greatest curse which can be inflicted upon society. We say frankly that we do not believe that this Dred Scott decision, the most important every given in that tribunal, could have been wrenched from magistrates who were not under the undue influence of Slavery, and thinking so, we shall say so. It has come to a pretty pass, indeed, if this Court, created by the people, is to be considered as entirely above popular criticism as incapable of error, as utterly irresponsible. If this were so, we might as well give up the executive and legislative branches of the Government at once. Not so thought Jefferson, whose name is always in the mouths of Democrats, and who utterly denied the right of the Court to construe the Constitution for the coordinate branches aforesaid.

We hear much of the dangers of agitation. We admit them; but we know of another danger far greater, and that is the danger that our liberties may be subverted, our rights trampled upon; the spirit of our institutions utterly disregarded, and our great republican experiment turn out a disastrous failure. We confess that this danger particularly occupies our mind just about this time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Supreme Court . The First Hundred Years . Primary Sources | PBS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Editorial response of the New York TRIBUNE to the Dred Scott decision, 12 March 1857 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION The Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, issued in March 1857, held that African Americans were not, and never could be, citizens of the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
This Newspaper article of Dred Scott and wife Harriet Scott was published June 27, 1857.

# data[].attributes.body
In this ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that slaves were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the Federal Government or the courts. The opinion also stated that Congress had no authority to ban slavery from a Federal territory.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Our Documents - Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
OurDocuments.gov. Featuring 100 milestone documents of American history from the National Archives. Includes images of original primary source documents, lesson plans, teacher and student competitions, and educational resources.

# data[].attributes.body
WHO'S DRED SCOTT???? HERE'S A LITTLE KETCHUP lolz!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Educational Videos for Students (Cartoons on Bullying, Leadership & More)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meet Dred Scott for Black History Month: featured Cartoon for Kids with Dred Scott (Black History)

# data[].attributes.body
1. In this video you will learn about the decision of the supreme court as well as the background knowledge of Dred Scott v. Sanford and slaves as citizens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Dred Scott Decision Explained: US History Review

# data[].attributes.body
Roger B. Taney's opinion/decision on Dred Scott case(1860.) This is paper 1 out of 104 of Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis's opinions, analyses, and concluding observations. (Click Inside of the picture to see the Sources)

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott was born in SouthHampton, Virginia by the name of Sam. Scott was enslaved by Peter Blow, but when Blow died, Scott was bought by John Emerson, a surgeon in the U.S. Army.