Tuesday, June 01, 2010

3 comments:

Kit (Keep It Trill) said...

Who is that guy?

Amarie said...

That's Dred Scott. A slave that tried to sue for his freedom and lost.

makheru bradley said...

Long live the spirit of Dred and Harriet Scott, who pursued their freedom through state and federal courts, thereby forcing America to resolve the legality of slavery via the Civil War.

[Scott moved to St. Louis, Missouri, with his owners in 1830 and was sold to Dr. John Emerson sometime between 1831 and 1833. Emerson, as an Army doctor, was a frequent traveler, so between his sale to Emerson and Emerson's death in late 1843, Scott lived for extended periods of time in Fort Armstrong, Illinois, Fort Snelling, Wisconsin Territory, Fort Jessup, Louisiana, and in St. Louis. During his travels, Scott lived for a total of seven years in areas closed to slavery; Illinois was a free state and the Missouri Compromise of 1820 had closed the Wisconsin Territory to slavery. When Scott's decade-long fight for freedom began on April 6, 1846, he lived in St. Louis and was the property of Emerson's wife.]-- Lisa Cozzens

Most of the focus on the case of Scott v Sandford and has been on the citizenship ruling by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney:
[A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its "people or citizens." Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.]

Had Taney stopped there it’s not likely that the case would have exacerbated the national tensions over slavery that it did. However, he proceeded to overturn the Missouri Compromise.
[Every citizen has a right to take with him into the Territory any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recognises as property. The Constitution of the United States recognises slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind. The act of Congress, therefore, prohibiting a citizen of the United States from taking with him his slaves when he removes to the Territory in question to reside is an exercise of authority over private property which is not warranted by the Constitution, and the removal of the plaintiff by his owner to that Territory gave him no title to freedom.]

[Taney reasoned that the Missouri Compromise deprived slaveholding citizens of their property in the form of slaves and that therefore the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.]-- Lisa Cozzens

"My hopes were never brighter than now."— Frederick Douglass

The prescient Douglass saw Taney’s ruling as the blow which would eventually lead to the destruction of slavery, and history has proven him to be correct. However, without the courage and determination of Dred and Harriet Scott and their abolitionist supporters and lawyers that blow may have never been struck