NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
To tell the story of a slave is, of necessity, to tell the story largely, of his masters. This is the story of a slave that whished for freedom. After belonging to several different owners, Dred whished to carry on his life as a free man with his wife and two children. Relying on the Justice System in America. Dred took his fight for freedom to the courts, little did he know that his case would one day go down in history as the turning point in American slavery. The Blow family were Dred's first masters; they lived on a farm in Virginia, poor and worn out from years of cultivation, they moved with the Era of Good Feelings west like so many others to Huntsville, Alabama (Hopkins 1).
For eleven years the Blows farmed in Alabama, but either the land had not been as bountiful as promised, or the lure of greater possibilities in growing St Louis caused Peter Blow to move on. Huntsville was left behind and the Blows and their Negroes traveled again, this time northwest (Hopkins 2). Peter Blow set up a boarding house called The Jefferson Hotel in St Louis, but accumulating unpaid bills indicate that the venture was less than successful. Peter Blow eventually gave up his hotel and moved his family into another house, but his own health failed in the months that followed, he died on June 23, 1863 (Fehrenbacher 239) After Mr.
Blows death in 1863 Dred was sold to meet creditors debts for five hundred dollars to Dr. John Emerson who at the time had been trying to obtain an appointment as assistant surgeon to the United States Army. He received his commission and took with him a slave who was the former property of Peter Blow (Fehrenbacher 240). Dred could neither read nor write, and on legal documents he made his mark. He had very dark skin and may have been no more than five feet tall. He was described by a newspaper once as illiterate but not ignorant with a strong common sense he however still remains a very indistinct figure (Fehrenbacher 240).
It is uncertain how Dred felt about being sold to Dr Emerson, opinions on this differ. By one account he was so distraught that he ran away immediately after being sold and by another that he had begged John Emerson to buy him after having been whipped badly by Peter Blow (Fehrenbacher 241). When John Emerson received his commission he moved to Fort Armstrong, Illinois, a free state with his slave Dred Scott. He spent some 9 years as an assistant surgeon in the United States Army. During that period if Emerson correspondence with the Surgeon General is to be believed he must have been one of the sickest doctors kept on active military duty. There was always a motive in his illness however, for he seldom wrote the general without asking for transfer or a leave of absence (Fehrenbacher 243).
Life at an army barracks certainly may not have been arduous for Dred but it certainly must have been a shock for Emerson because within 2 months he asked for leave citing that he had contracted syphilis disease on a recent visit to Philadelphia. In 1836 when the army decided to vacate Fort Armstrong, Emerson found himself transferred at last. His new station was at Fort Snelling on the upper west bank of the Mississippi River, thus Scott, who had been a slave in a free state for more than 2 years had been taken to an area where slavery was forbidden as part of the Missouri Compromise. Scott would meet a slave girl named Harriett Robinson while at Fort Snelling. Harriett was either then sold to Emerson or given to Scott for wife, with permission they married and would remain together for the next 20 years. Emerson was not happy at Fort Snelling he complained about the cold.
He moved to Fort Jesup leaving behind his 2 slaves. While at Fort Jesup Emerson married, his bride was Eliza Irene Sanford They wed on February 6, 1838 (Hopkins 6). Emerson then tried to escape Fort Jesup He wrote to the Surgeon General on July 10, 1838 citing reasons for his transfer northward, he explained his legal difficulties Even one of my Negroes in Saint Louis has sued me for his freedom (Hopkins 7). On September 23, 1842 Emerson found himself without an appointment, the medical staff of the army being greatly reduced. A reappointment seemed certain but Emerson died at Davenport on December 30, 1843 (Hopkins 7). With the death of their masters Dred and his family passed to Mrs.
Emerson, for the term of her natural life. Dred Scott tried to buy his family's freedom from Mrs. Emerson, but she refused. This is at least, is what he told a newspaper reporter many years later. If true, this story leaves the unanswered question: why Mrs.
Emerson rejected the offer to get rid of an allegedly shiftless and by then, middle-aged slave (Fehrenbacher 250). On April 6, 1846 Dred petitioned the Missouri court circuit citing his residency on free soil in Illinois and in the Minnesota Territory, as grounds for his freedom (Hopkins 10). The judge promptly gave them permission to sue. Dred and Harriet's complaint was stated that on April 4 Mrs. Emerson had beat, bruised and ill-treated him and had then imprisoned them for 12 hours. It also stated that Dred was a free person held in slavery unlawfully by the defendant and it claimed damages of 10 dollars.
Thus at the beginning of Dred's lawsuit there were two suits against Mrs. Emerson circulating throughout the Missouri courts (Fehrenbacher 251). On November 19, 1846 Mrs. Emerson filed a plea of not guilty in answer to Scotts charge of assault (Hopkins 11). On June 30 the trial commenced in the long, rectangular room at the west end of the still uncompleted courthouse in St.
Louis (Hopkins 12 The task for the Scotts attorneys seemed fairly simple. They had only to prove that Dred had been taken to reside on free soil and that he was now held as a slave by Mrs. Emerson. However, none of the testimony that was put forth that day proved what everyone knew to be true, that Mrs. Emerson now owned Dred Scott. Justice was swift that day as verdicts were returned on that same day (Fehrenbacher 253 - 254).
The decision accomplished the effect that Mrs. Emerson was allowed to keep her slaves for the simple reason that no one had proved that they were her slaves (Fehrenbacher 254). The Scotts attorney promptly motioned for a new trial. By this time it was clear that the determination of the Scotts to have freedom was matched only by determination of Mrs. Emerson to keep her slaves.
After the death of her father in 1848 Mrs. Emerson left St. Louis for Springfield, Massachusetts to live with one of her sisters. At this point John Sanford took over the provisions of his sisters affairs in St Louis (Fehrenbacher 256). More than a year and a half elapsed before the second trial was held. This time testimony clearly established that Mrs.
Emerson did indeed own the Scotts. The defense changed its strategy stating that at Forts Armstrong and Snelling, Emerson had been under military jurisdiction and therefore not subject to the laws of civil government that prohibited slavery. The verdict that followed by a matter of course made Dred Scott nominally a free man (Heffner 161). However times were changing in the United States at that time, slavery was becoming a hotly debated issue.
Northern dissatisfaction was growing centered primarily on the Fugitive Slave Act, while Southern concern was centered on the apprehension of antislavery assaults (Hopkins 14). The Supreme Court judges discussed the drafting of their Dred Scott decision (Fehrenbacher 259). For months this task was put off, however while this procrastination was occurring the Supreme Court was changing. A recent amendment to the state constitution had changed the court from an appointed body to an elective body (Fehrenbacher 260). So with the newly elected they set out to render a decision on the Scott case. On March 22 1852 Judge Scott finally announced the decision of the court, he found that Dred Scott was still a slave and ordered the decision of the lower court reversed.
Thus ended the six-year fight to establish Dred Scotts right for freedom under the laws and in the courts of Missouri (Fehrenbacher 265) Dred Scott v. Sanford was a suit for freedom; the declaration filed for Scott on November 2, 1853 asserted that he was a citizen of Missouri. It complained that on the preceding January 1, Sanford attacked and wrongfully imprisoned Dred, his wife Harriett and their 2 children. The damages totaled on these three charges totaled 9000 dollars (Fehrenbacher 276). Sanford replied at the next term in April 1854, he claimed abatement on the grounds that Scott, as a Negro descended from slaves of pure African blood, and was not in fact a...
Free research essays on topics related to: dred scott, surgeon general, st louis, united states army, supreme court
Research essay sample on United States Army Dred Scott
