Dred Scott

=<div>roswell hopkins marr spencer</div><div><a href="https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6950F840-FB80-FCB0-D505-8AB1FA685F08#-3054">
</a></div><div><a href="https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6950F840-FB80-FCB0-D505-8AB1FA685F08#-3054">https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6950F840-FB80-FCB0-D505-8AB1FA685F08#-3054</a>
<div>
</div><div>=</div><div>3 23 mta</div><div>
</div><div>on this day 167 years ago, the Supreme Court handed down one of their most infamous decisions -- Dred Scott v. Sandford -- in which they ruled that the Constitution was not meant to include citizenship for people of African descent (whether enslaved or free).
Dred Scott and his wife, Harriet had separately petitioned for their freedom after their "owner" had moved them to the free state of Missouri. After consolidating their cases and winning in a lower court, the "owner" appealed. A state court ruled in the "owner's" favor, and it was then brought to the Supreme Court.In a 7-2 ruling, SCOTUS not only set a precedent that people of African descent were not entitled to Constitutional rights -- but also that Congress’s Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had banned the expansion of slavery into many northwest territories, was illegal because it was an unconstitutional denial of white people’s Fifth Amendment right to keep their property (i.e., Black human beings) and declared Black people "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” 
The ruling obviously incensed the abolitionist movement and was a huge factor in the lead-up to the Civil War.However, despite the 13th Amendment passing in 1865 and the 14th Amendment in 1968 -- the Dred Scott decision was never formally overturned.This means it can still be cited as legal precedent today. And it has been, even as recently as 2016 -- when the Kansas Attorney General invoked it (favorably!) to support the state's attempt at denying women the right to privacy and reproductive healthcare (Herbert Hodes, M.D. & Traci Lynn Nauser, M.D. v. Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt). The legal brief stated, “While the Declaration of Independence states that all men are endowed certain unalienable rights including ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,’ it does NOT grant rights that may be pursued through the judicial system. See also Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 407 (1857)....”The state lost the case, thankfully. But the implications of this horrendous ruling are still haunting us today.<h3 style="text-align: left; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">What does this mean?</h3>It means we need to accept the reality that the U.S. Constitution is first and foremost a property rights document and that the Supreme Court has always functioned to uphold the primacy of property ownership above all else -- including the extension of the rights that were meant for We The People to corporations (who are artificial entities, not people).While the 14th amendment "effectively" overturned the Dred Scott ruling, it didn't take long before it was used to grant "equal protection" to corporations under the Constitution -- the birth of corporate personhood -- in 1886. And since then, corporations have benefited from the U.S. Constitution far more than any human being.The Supreme Court will never liberate us. We must liberate ourselves from the Supreme Court...One of the ways we can do that is with the passage of <a href="https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment?e=0cbbb01e173988b15644392e76a63f1d&utm_source=movetoamend&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dred_scott_2023&n=2" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment?e%3D0cbbb01e173988b15644392e76a63f1d%26utm_source%3Dmovetoamend%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_campaign%3Ddred_scott_2023%26n%3D2&source=gmail&ust=1678301597614000&usg=AOvVaw0uOsdi0gs4logNrieM5n8f" style="color: rgb(20, 136, 185);">House Joint Resolution 48, the #WeThePeopleAmendment</a>, which states that constitutional rights belong ONLY to human beings, NOT corporations -- and that money is NOT a protected form of free speech. It could overturn every related case, going all the way back to 1886.However, to overrule the courts, we must learn from the past and build a powerful people's movement that demands more than reforms. A deep, diverse, vibrant, and organized movement that is not only capable of passing the #WeThePeopleAmendment, but that is also strong enough to go even deeper, and co-create new systems that serve us, and we deserve.Because, the ultimate goal for a nation and Constitution that was founded on genocide, slavery, and subjugation of women MUST be to ABOLISH those systems at their very root -- and replace them with systems that are fundamentally predicated on human rights, and rights of nature, over property rights. </div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford</a></div><div>
</div><div>Dred Scott v. Sandford,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-a-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[a]</a> 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States" title="List of landmark court decisions in the United States" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">landmark decision</a> of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Supreme Court of the United States" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">United States Supreme Court</a> that held the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States" title="Constitution of the United States" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">U.S. Constitution</a> did not extend <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_United_States" title="Citizenship of the United States" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">American citizenship</a> to people of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans" title="African Americans" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">black African descent</a>, and thus they could not enjoy the rights and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause" title="Privileges and Immunities Clause" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">privileges</a> the Constitution conferred upon American citizens.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-FOOTNOTEChemerinsky2015722-3" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[2]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-FOOTNOTENowakRotunda2012%C2%A718.6-4" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[3]</a> The Supreme Court's decision has been widely denounced, both for its overt racism and for its crucial role in the start of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War" title="American Civil War" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">American Civil War</a> four years later.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-5" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[4]</a> Legal scholar Bernard Schwartz said that it "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions". Chief Justice <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Evans_Hughes" title="Charles Evans Hughes" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Charles Evans Hughes</a> called it the Court's "greatest self-inflicted wound".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-6" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[5]</a>The decision involved the case of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott" title="Dred Scott" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Dred Scott</a>, an enslaved black man whose owners had taken him from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri" title="Missouri" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Missouri</a>, a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Missouri" title="History of slavery in Missouri" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">slave-holding state</a>, into <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois" title="Illinois" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Illinois</a> and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Territory" title="Wisconsin Territory" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Wisconsin Territory</a>, where slavery was illegal. When his owners later brought him back to Missouri, Scott sued for his freedom and claimed that because he had been taken into "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_states_and_free_states" title="Slave states and free states" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">free</a>" U.S. territory, he had automatically been freed and was legally no longer a slave. Scott sued first in Missouri state court, which ruled that he was still a slave under its law. He then sued in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_judiciary_of_the_United_States" title="Federal judiciary of the United States" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">U.S. federal court</a>, which ruled against him by deciding that it had to apply Missouri law to the case. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision against Scott. In an opinion written by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States" title="Chief Justice of the United States" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Chief Justice</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Taney" class="mw-redirect" title="Roger Taney" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Roger Taney</a>, the Court ruled that people of African descent "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States". Taney supported his ruling with an extended survey of American state and local laws from the time of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention(United_States)" title="Constitutional Convention (United States)" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Constitution's drafting</a> in 1787 that purported to show that a "perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery". Because the Court ruled that Scott was not an American citizen, he was also not a citizen of any state and, accordingly, could never establish the "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_jurisdiction" title="Diversity jurisdiction" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">diversity of citizenship</a>" that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_III_of_the_United_States_Constitution" class="mw-redirect" title="Article III of the United States Constitution" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Article III of the U.S. Constitution</a> requires for a U.S. federal court to be able to exercise jurisdiction over a case.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-FOOTNOTEChemerinsky2015722-3" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[2]</a> After ruling on those issues surrounding Scott, Taney struck down the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise" title="Missouri Compromise" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Missouri Compromise</a> as a limitation on slave owners' property rights that exceeded the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress" title="United States Congress" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">U.S. Congress</a>'s constitutional powers.Although Taney and several <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taney_Court#Membership" title="Taney Court" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">other justices</a> hoped the decision would settle the slavery controversy, which was increasingly dividing the American public, the decision only exacerbated interstate tension.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-FOOTNOTEChemerinsky2015723-7" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[6]</a> Taney's majority opinion suited the slaveholding states, but was intensely decried in all the other states.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-FOOTNOTENowakRotunda2012%C2%A718.6-4" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[3]</a> The decision inflamed the national debate over slavery and deepened the divide that led ultimately to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War" title="American Civil War" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">American Civil War</a>. In 1865, after the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union(American_Civil_War)" title="Union (American Civil War)" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Union</a>'s victory, the Court's ruling in Dred Scott was superseded by the passage of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution</a>, which abolished slavery, and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Fourteenth Amendment</a>, whose first section guaranteed citizenship for "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".Historians agree that the Court decision was a major disaster for the nation as it dramatically inflamed tensions leading to the Civil War.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-Carrafiello-A-8" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[7]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-9" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[8]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-10" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[9]</a> In 2022 historian <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_W.Blight" title="David W. Blight" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">David W. Blight</a> argues that 1857 was, "the great pivot on the road to disunion...largely because of the Dred Scott case, which stoked the fear, distrust and conspiratorial hatred already common in both the North and the South to new levels of intensity."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-11" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[10]</a><div id="toc" class="toc" role="navigation" aria-labelledby="mw-toc-heading" style="border: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); background-color: rgb(248, 249, 250); padding: 7px; display: table;"><input type="checkbox" role="button" id="toctogglecheckbox" class="toctogglecheckbox" style="margin: 0px; position: absolute; opacity: 0; z-index: -1; display: none;" /><div class="toctitle" lang="en" dir="ltr" style="text-align: left; direction: ltr;">
</div><ul style="list-style: none; margin: 0.3em 0px; padding: 0px;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Background" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">1Background</a><ul style="list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Political_setting" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">1.1Political setting</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Dred_Scott_and_John_Emerson" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">1.2Dred Scott and John Emerson</a><ul style="list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px;"><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Irene_Sanford_Emerson" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">1.2.1Irene Sanford Emerson</a></li></ul></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Procedural_history" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2Procedural history</a><ul style="list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Scott_v.Emerson" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2.1Scott v. Emerson</a><ul style="list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px;"><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-7" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#First_state_circuit_court_trial" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2.1.1First state circuit court trial</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-8" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#First_state_supreme_court_appeal" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2.1.2First state supreme court appeal</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-9" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Second_state_circuit_court_trial" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2.1.3Second state circuit court trial</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-10" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Second_state_supreme_court_appeal" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2.1.4Second state supreme court appeal</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-11" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Scott_v.Sanford" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2.2Scott v. Sanford</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-12" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Sanford_as_defendant" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2.3Sanford as defendant</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-13" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Influence_of_President_Buchanan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2.4Influence of President Buchanan</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-14" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Supreme_Court_decision" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">3Supreme Court decision</a><ul style="list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-15" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Opinion_of_the_Court" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">3.1Opinion of the Court</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-16" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Dissents" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">3.2Dissents</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-17" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Reactions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">4Reactions</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-18" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Impact_on_both_parties" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">5Impact on both parties</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-19" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Aftermath" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">6Aftermath</a><ul style="list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-20" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Economic" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">6.1Economic</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-21" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Political" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">6.2Political</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-22" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Later_references" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">7Later references</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-23" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Legacy" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">8Legacy</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-24" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#See_also" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">9See also</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-25" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Notes" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">10Notes</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-26" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#References" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">11References</a><ul style="list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-27" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Citations" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">11.1Citations</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-28" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Works_cited" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">11.2Works cited</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-29" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#Further_reading" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">12Further reading</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-30" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#External_links" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">13External links</a></li></ul></div><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Background[</h2><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Political setting[</h3><div class="thumb tright" style="clear: right; float: right; width: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.5em 0px 1.3em 1.4em;"><div class="thumbinner" style="text-align: left; min-width: 100px; padding: 3px; overflow: hidden; border: 1px solid rgb(200, 204, 209); background-color: rgb(248, 249, 250); width: 392px;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_Territorial_Growth_1820_alt_cropped.jpg" class="image" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><img alt="" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/USA_Territorial_Growth_1820_alt_cropped.jpg/390px-USA_Territorial_Growth_1820_alt_cropped.jpg" decoding="async" width="390" height="239" class="thumbimage" srcset="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/USA_Territorial_Growth_1820_alt_cropped.jpg/585px-USA_Territorial_Growth_1820_alt_cropped.jpg 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/USA_Territorial_Growth_1820_alt_cropped.jpg/780px-USA_Territorial_Growth_1820_alt_cropped.jpg 2x" data-file-width="883" data-file-height="540" style="border: 1px solid rgb(200, 204, 209); vertical-align: middle; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /></a><div class="thumbcaption" style="text-align: left; line-height: 1.4em; padding: 3px; border: 0px;"><div class="magnify" style="float: right; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 0px;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_Territorial_Growth_1820_alt_cropped.jpg" class="internal" title="Enlarge" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" magnify-clip-ltr.svg="magnify-clip-ltr.svg" e="e" display="display" block="block" text-indent="text-indent" px="px" white-space="white-space" nowrap="nowrap" overflow="overflow" hidden="hidden" width="width" height="height" user-select="user-select" none="none" /></div><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_Territorial_Growth_1820_alt_cropped.jpg" class="internal" title="Enlarge" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" magnify-clip-ltr.svg="magnify-clip-ltr.svg" e="e" display="display" block="block" text-indent="text-indent" px="px" white-space="white-space" nowrap="nowrap" overflow="overflow" hidden="hidden" width="width" height="height" user-select="user-select" none="none">The </a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise" title="Missouri Compromise" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Missouri Compromise</a> created the slave-holding state Missouri (Mo., yellow) but prohibited slavery in the rest of the former Louisiana Territory (here, marked Missouri Territory 1812, green) north of the 36°30' North parallel.</div></div></div>In the late 1810s, a major political dispute arose over the creation of new American <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.State" class="mw-redirect" title="U.S. State" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">states</a> from the vast territory the United States had acquired from France in 1803 through the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase" title="Louisiana Purchase" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Louisiana Purchase</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-FOOTNOTEChemerinsky2019%C2%A7 9.3.1,p.750-12" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[11]</a> The dispute centered on whether the new states would be "free" states, like the Northern states, in which slavery would be illegal, or whether they would be "slave" states, like the Southern states, in which slavery would be legal.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-FOOTNOTEChemerinsky2019%C2%A7 9.3.1,p.750-12" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[11]</a> The Southern states wanted the new states to be slave states in order to enhance their own political and economic power. The Northern states wanted the new states to be free states for their own political and economic reasons, as well as their moral concerns over allowing the institution of slavery to expand.In 1820, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_United_States_Congress" title="16th United States Congress" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">U.S. Congress</a> passed legislation known as the "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise" title="Missouri Compromise" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Missouri Compromise</a>" that was intended to resolve the dispute. The Compromise first admitted <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine" title="Maine" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Maine</a> into the Union as a free state, then created <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri" title="Missouri" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Missouri</a> out of a portion of the Louisiana Purchase territory and admitted it as a slave state; at the same time it prohibited slavery in the area north of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_36%C2%B030%E2%80%B2_north" title="Parallel 36°30′ north" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Parallel 36°30′ north</a>, where most of the territory lay.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-FOOTNOTEChemerinsky2019%C2%A7 9.3.1,p.750-12" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[11]</a> The legal effects of a slaveowner taking his slaves from Missouri into the free territory north of the 36°30′ north parallel, as well as the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise itself, eventually came to a head in the Dred Scott case.<h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Dred Scott and John Emerson[</h3><div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable" style="font-style: italic; padding-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Main article: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott" title="Dred Scott" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Dred Scott</a></div><div class="thumb tright" style="clear: right; float: right; width: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.5em 0px 1.3em 1.4em;"><div class="thumbinner" style="min-width: 100px; padding: 3px; text-align: center; overflow: hidden; border: 1px solid rgb(200, 204, 209); background-color: rgb(248, 249, 250); width: 222px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oil_on_Canvas_Portrait_of_Dred_Scott(cropped).jpg" class="image" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><img alt="" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Oil_on_Canvas_Portrait_of_Dred_Scott%28cropped%29.jpg/220px-Oil_on_Canvas_Portrait_of_Dred_Scott%28cropped%29.jpg" decoding="async" width="220" height="272" class="thumbimage" srcset="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Oil_on_Canvas_Portrait_of_Dred_Scott%28cropped%29.jpg/330px-Oil_on_Canvas_Portrait_of_Dred_Scott%28cropped%29.jpg 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Oil_on_Canvas_Portrait_of_Dred_Scott%28cropped%29.jpg/440px-Oil_on_Canvas_Portrait_of_Dred_Scott%28cropped%29.jpg 2x" data-file-width="3495" data-file-height="4321" style="border: 1px solid rgb(200, 204, 209); vertical-align: middle; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /></a></div><div class="thumbcaption" style="text-align: left; line-height: 1.4em; padding: 3px; border: 0px;"><div class="magnify" style="float: right; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 0px;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oil_on_Canvas_Portrait_of_Dred_Scott(cropped).jpg" class="internal" title="Enlarge" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" magnify-clip-ltr.svg="magnify-clip-ltr.svg" e="e" display="display" block="block" text-indent="text-indent" px="px" white-space="white-space" nowrap="nowrap" overflow="overflow" hidden="hidden" width="width" height="height" user-select="user-select" none="none" /></div><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oil_on_Canvas_Portrait_of_Dred_Scott(cropped).jpg" class="internal" title="Enlarge" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" magnify-clip-ltr.svg="magnify-clip-ltr.svg" e="e" display="display" block="block" text-indent="text-indent" px="px" white-space="white-space" nowrap="nowrap" overflow="overflow" hidden="hidden" width="width" height="height" user-select="user-select" none="none">Dred Scott</a></div></div></div><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oil_on_Canvas_Portrait_of_Dred_Scott(cropped).jpg" class="internal" title="Enlarge" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" magnify-clip-ltr.svg="magnify-clip-ltr.svg" e="e" display="display" block="block" text-indent="text-indent" px="px" white-space="white-space" nowrap="nowrap" overflow="overflow" hidden="hidden" width="width" height="height" user-select="user-select" none="none"></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott" title="Dred Scott" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Dred Scott</a> was born a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Virginia" title="History of slavery in Virginia" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">slave in Virginia</a> around 1799.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-13" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[12]</a> Little is known of his early years.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-14" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[13]</a> His owner, Peter Blow, moved to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama" title="Alabama" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Alabama</a> in 1818, taking his six slaves along to work a farm near <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntsville,Alabama" title="Huntsville, Alabama" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Huntsville</a>. In 1830, Blow gave up farming and settled in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St.Louis,Missouri" class="mw-redirect" title="St. Louis, Missouri" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">St. Louis, Missouri</a>, where he sold Scott to U.S. Army surgeon Dr. John Emerson.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-Missouri_Digital_Heritage-15" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[14]</a> After purchasing Scott, Emerson took him to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Armstrong,Illinois" class="mw-redirect" title="Fort Armstrong, Illinois" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Fort Armstrong</a> in Illinois. A <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_state(United_States)" class="mw-redirect" title="Free state (United States)" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">free state</a>, Illinois had been free as a territory under the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance" title="Northwest Ordinance" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Northwest Ordinance</a> of 1787, and had prohibited slavery in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Illinois" title="Constitution of Illinois" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">its constitution</a> in 1819 when it was admitted as a state.In 1836, Emerson moved with Scott from Illinois to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Snelling" title="Fort Snelling" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Fort Snelling</a> in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_territory" class="mw-redirect" title="Wisconsin territory" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Wisconsin territory</a> in what has become the state of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota" title="Minnesota" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Minnesota</a>. Slavery in the Wisconsin Territory (some of which, including Fort Snelling, was part of the Louisiana Purchase) was prohibited by the U.S. Congress under the Missouri Compromise. During his stay at Fort Snelling, Scott married <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Robinson_Scott" title="Harriet Robinson Scott" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Harriet Robinson</a> in a civil ceremony by Harriet's owner, Major Lawrence Taliaferro, a justice of the peace who was also an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_agent" title="Indian agent" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Indian agent</a>. The ceremony would have been unnecessary had Dred Scott been a slave, as slave marriages had no recognition in the law.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-FOOTNOTEFinkelman2007-16" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[15]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-Missouri_Digital_Heritage-15" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[14]</a>In 1837, the army ordered Emerson to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Barracks" class="mw-redirect" title="Jefferson Barracks" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Jefferson Barracks Military Post</a>, south of St. Louis. Emerson left Scott and his wife at Fort Snelling, where he leased their services out for profit. By hiring Scott out in a free state, Emerson was effectively bringing the institution of slavery into a free state, which was a direct violation of the Missouri Compromise, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Wisconsin Enabling Act.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-FOOTNOTEFinkelman2007-16" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[15]</a><h4 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Irene Sanford Emerson[</h4>Before the end of the year, the army reassigned Emerson to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Jesup" title="Fort Jesup" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Fort Jesup</a> in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana" title="Louisiana" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Louisiana</a>, where Emerson married Eliza Irene Sanford in February 1838. Emerson sent for Scott and Harriet, who proceeded to Louisiana to serve their master and his wife. Within months, Emerson was transferred back to Fort Snelling. While en route to Fort Snelling, Scott's daughter Eliza was born on a steamboat under way on the Mississippi River between Illinois and what would become Iowa. Because Eliza was born in free territory, she was technically born as a free person under both federal and state laws. Upon entering Louisiana, the Scotts could have sued for their freedom, but did not. One scholar suggests that, in all likelihood, the Scotts would have been granted their freedom by a Louisiana court, as it had respected laws of free states that slaveholders forfeited their right to slaves if they brought them in for extended periods. This had been the holding in Louisiana state courts for more than 20 years.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-FOOTNOTEFinkelman2007-16" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[15]</a>Toward the end of 1838, the army reassigned Emerson back to Fort Snelling. By 1840, Emerson's wife Irene returned to St. Louis with their slaves, while Dr. Emerson served in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminole_War" class="mw-redirect" title="Seminole War" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Seminole War</a>. While in St. Louis, she hired them out. In 1842, Emerson left the army. After he died in the Iowa Territory in 1843, his widow Irene inherited his estate, including the Scotts. For three years after John Emerson's death, she continued to lease out the Scotts as hired slaves. In 1846, Scott <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manumission#United_States" title="Manumission" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">attempted to purchase</a> his and his family's freedom, but Irene Emerson refused, prompting Scott to resort to legal recourse.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v.Sandford#cite_note-Fehrenbacher_2001-17" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[16]</a><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Procedural history[</h2><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Scott v. Emerson[</h3><h4 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">First state circuit court trial</h4></div><div>...</div><div>=</div></div>