I love this Man..... Dred Scott

Dred Scott 

 (1799 – September 17, 1858), was an African-American slave in the United States who sued unsuccessfully for his freedom in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857. His case was based on the fact that although he and his wife Harriet Scott were slaves, he had lived with his master Dr. John Emerson in states and territories where slavery was illegal according to both state laws and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, including Illinois and Minnesota (which was then part of the Wisconsin Territory). The United States Supreme Court ruled seven to two against Scott, finding that neither he, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, since that would improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property.


The case raised the issue of a slave who had lived in a free state. Congress had not asserted whether slaves were free if they set foot upon free soil. The ruling overturned the Missouri Compromise since by the court's logic, any attempt at regulating slavery in the federal Territories deprived a slave owner of his property without due process. This enraged the abolitionist Republicans and further exacerbated sectional sentiments that led to the Civil War.
Scott had traveled with his master Dr. John Emerson, who was in the US Army and often transferred. Scott's extended stay with his master in Illinois, a free state, gave him the legal standing to make a claim for freedom, as did his extended stay at Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin Territory (now Minnesota), where slavery was also prohibited. But Scott did not file a petition for freedom while living in the free lands—perhaps because he was unaware of his rights at the time, or because he was fearful of possible repercussions. After two years, the army transferred Emerson to territory where slavery was legal: first to St. Louis, Missouri, then to Louisiana. In just over a year, the recently married Emerson summoned his slave couple. Instead of staying in the free territory of Wisconsin (now Minnesota), or going to the free state of Illinois, the two traveled nearly 1,250 miles (2000 km)^{[citation needed]}, apparently unaccompanied, down the Mississippi River to meet their master. Only after Emerson's death in 1843, when Emerson's widow hired out Scott to an army captain, did Scott seek freedom for himself and his wife. First he offered to buy his freedom from Emerson's widow, Irene Emerson—then living in St. Louis—for US $300, about $7,000 in current value. After she refused his request, Scott sought freedom in the St. Louis Circuit Court.

Dred Scott Case

Decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case

---

The Ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri Compromise Declared Unconstitutional

Washington, Friday, March 6 - The opinion of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case was delivered by Chief Justice Taney. It was a full and elaborate statement of the views of the Court. They have decided the following important points:

First - Negroes, whether slaves or free, that is, men of the African race, are not citizens of the United States by the Constitution.
Second - The Ordinance of 1787 had no independent constitutional force or legal effect subsequently to the adoption of the Constitution, and could not operate of itself to confer freedom or citizenship within the Northwest Territory on negroes not citizens by the Constitution.
Third - The provisions of the Act of 1820, commonly called the Missouri Compromise, in so far as it undertook to exclude negro slavery from, and communicate freedom and citizenship to, negroes in the northern part of the Louisiana cession, was a Legislative act exceeding the powers of Congress, and void, and of no legal effect to that end.

In deciding these main points, the Supreme Court determined the following incidental points:
First - The expression "territory and other property" of the Union, in the Constitution, applies "in terms" only to such territory as the Union possessed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
Second - The rights of citizens of the United States emigrating into any Federal territory, and the power of the Federal Government there depend on the general provisions of the Constitution, which defines in this, as in all other respects, the powers of Congress.
Third - As Congress does not possess power itself to make onsetments relative to the persons or property of citizens of the United States, in a Federal Territory, other than such as the Constitution confers, so it cannot constitutionally delegate any such powers to a Territorial Government, organized by it under the Constitution.
Fourth - The legal condition of a slave in the State of Missouri is not affected by the temporary sojourn of such slave in any other Sate, but on his return his condition still depends on the laws of Missouri.

As the plaintiff was not a citizen of Missouri, he, therefore, could not sue in the Courts of the United States. The suit must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The delivery of this opinion occupied about three hours, and was listened to with profound attention by a crowded Court room. Among the auditors were gentlemen of eminent legal ability, and a due proportion of ladies.

Judge Nelson stated the merits of the case. The question was whether or not the removal of Scott from Missouri with his master to Illinois, with a view to temporary residence there, worked his emancipation. He maintained that the question depended wholly on the law of Missouri, and for that reason the judgment of the Court below should be affirmed.

Judge Catron believed the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to decide the merits of the case. He argued that Congress could not do directly what it could not do indirectly. If it could exclude one species of property, it could exclude another. With regard to the Territories ceded, Congress could govern them; and the Missouri act of 1820 violated the leading features of the Constitution, and was therefore void. He concurred with his brother Judges, that Scott is a slave, and was so when this suit was brought.
Several other Judges are to deliver their views tomorrow

We's Free... I declare We is Free!!

1-1-1863
A Proclamation by the President of the United States


That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all person held as slaves within any State, or any designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever, free;

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this Twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-seventh.

Abraham Lincoln.
By the President.
William H. Seward, Secretary of State.The War Still to be Prosecuted for the Restoration of the Union

---

A Decree of Emancipation

---

All Slaves in States in Rebellion on the First of January Next to be Free

---

The Gradual Abolition and Colonization Schemes Adhered to

---

Loyal Citizens to be Remunerated for Losses, Including Slaves