Fehrenbacher Reaction Paper
Asha McWilliams
In Slavery, Law, & Politics: The Dred Scott Case in Historical Perspective, Fehrenbacher gives readers a snapshot view of the historical context surrounding the infamous Scott v Sandford case, more commonly known as the Dred Scott Case. He begins in the eighteenth century during the American period of continental expansion. During this time, there was constant debate over the admission of states; most notably, whether those states would be considered free or slave states. Fehrenbacher takes readers from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 until the legislators finally decide the issue must be heard by the court. Though, he notes that this path to the court is not …show more content…
However, it took Scott eleven years to reach this point. Fehrenbacher outlines how Scott was originally owned by the Blow family and was then purchased by the Emerson family in 1833. Under Mr. Emerson’s ownership, between the years of 1833 and 1838, Scott was moved from Missouri, to the Wisconsin Territory, to Louisiana, then back to the Wisconsin Territory, and lastly back to Missouri. By December of 1843, Mr. Emerson had passed, leaving Scott to his wife, Mrs. Emerson. Then, on April 6, 1846, Dred Scott and his wife filed suit against Mrs. Emerson to establish their right to freedom. Scott argued that the Wisconsin Territory was an area where slavery was forbidden according to the Missouri Compromise; therefore, when he was taken there by Mr. Emerson in 1836, he was effectively emancipated. However, by 1848, Sandford, Mrs. Emerson’s brother, took over the …show more content…
Even more, he went on to state that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Scott’s status depended upon the law of the state where the case of Scott v Emerson was originally filed. Hence, the Dred Scott case serves as the second instance in which the United State Supreme Court implemented its power of judicial review prior to the Civil War. Fehrenbacher then notes how the court had a 7-2 ruling in favor of the verdict; however, the justices still largely dissented on the particulars of the ruling. Even more, the antislavery public largely denounced the “racist implications of the decision.” On the other hand, the “race question” united Democrats and divided Republicans, while the “slavery question” divided Democrats and united Republicans. This case has garnered the legacy of being considered by many as one of the top five worst decisions in the history of the United States Supreme Court. Thus, the question arises, why does it still matter today? Slavery has been abolished in the United States of America, so the entire premise of this case is arguably no longer relevant. However, it is interesting to note the language surrounding the case. For, such discussions largely parallel the very debates we encounter today regarding issues of
Asha McWilliams
In Slavery, Law, & Politics: The Dred Scott Case in Historical Perspective, Fehrenbacher gives readers a snapshot view of the historical context surrounding the infamous Scott v Sandford case, more commonly known as the Dred Scott Case. He begins in the eighteenth century during the American period of continental expansion. During this time, there was constant debate over the admission of states; most notably, whether those states would be considered free or slave states. Fehrenbacher takes readers from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 until the legislators finally decide the issue must be heard by the court. Though, he notes that this path to the court is not …show more content…
However, it took Scott eleven years to reach this point. Fehrenbacher outlines how Scott was originally owned by the Blow family and was then purchased by the Emerson family in 1833. Under Mr. Emerson’s ownership, between the years of 1833 and 1838, Scott was moved from Missouri, to the Wisconsin Territory, to Louisiana, then back to the Wisconsin Territory, and lastly back to Missouri. By December of 1843, Mr. Emerson had passed, leaving Scott to his wife, Mrs. Emerson. Then, on April 6, 1846, Dred Scott and his wife filed suit against Mrs. Emerson to establish their right to freedom. Scott argued that the Wisconsin Territory was an area where slavery was forbidden according to the Missouri Compromise; therefore, when he was taken there by Mr. Emerson in 1836, he was effectively emancipated. However, by 1848, Sandford, Mrs. Emerson’s brother, took over the …show more content…
Even more, he went on to state that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Scott’s status depended upon the law of the state where the case of Scott v Emerson was originally filed. Hence, the Dred Scott case serves as the second instance in which the United State Supreme Court implemented its power of judicial review prior to the Civil War. Fehrenbacher then notes how the court had a 7-2 ruling in favor of the verdict; however, the justices still largely dissented on the particulars of the ruling. Even more, the antislavery public largely denounced the “racist implications of the decision.” On the other hand, the “race question” united Democrats and divided Republicans, while the “slavery question” divided Democrats and united Republicans. This case has garnered the legacy of being considered by many as one of the top five worst decisions in the history of the United States Supreme Court. Thus, the question arises, why does it still matter today? Slavery has been abolished in the United States of America, so the entire premise of this case is arguably no longer relevant. However, it is interesting to note the language surrounding the case. For, such discussions largely parallel the very debates we encounter today regarding issues of