Dred Scott v Sanford (1857)
In the 1830s, an army doctor, John Emerson, was reassigned to northern Wisconsin territory. He took his slave, Dred Scott, with him, into a free territory. Emerson was later called back to a slave state, but after he died Scott sued successfully for his freedom on the grounds that at the moment he was brought into free territory, he was a free man. The Missouri Supreme Court overturned that ruling, and Scott became a slave once again. He later took the case of Dred Scott v Sanford to the US Supreme Court, arguing that since his current owner was in New York, a free state, he could not own a slave such as Scott. Chief Justice Roger Taney, in the majority opinion, sided with Sanford, on the grounds that black residents of the united states were not citizens, and therefore could not bring a case to the supreme court. Furthermore, he stated, black people were denied all rights under the constitution. This decision hardened the resolve of many abolitionists, and gave the impression that abolitionist sentiment no longer had any way to legally accomplish emancipation. Conversely, the south celebrated what it viewed as an affirmation of its social structure.
In the 1830s, an army doctor, John Emerson, was reassigned to northern Wisconsin territory. He took his slave, Dred Scott, with him, into a free territory. Emerson was later called back to a slave state, but after he died Scott sued successfully for his freedom on the grounds that at the moment he was brought into free territory, he was a free man. The Missouri Supreme Court overturned that ruling, and Scott became a slave once again. He later took the case of Dred Scott v Sanford to the US Supreme Court, arguing that since his current owner was in New York, a free state, he could not own a slave such as Scott. Chief Justice Roger Taney, in the majority opinion, sided with Sanford, on the grounds that black residents of the united states were not citizens, and therefore could not bring a case to the supreme court. Furthermore, he stated, black people were denied all rights under the constitution. This decision hardened the resolve of many abolitionists, and gave the impression that abolitionist sentiment no longer had any way to legally accomplish emancipation. Conversely, the south celebrated what it viewed as an affirmation of its social structure.