Dred Scott & The Blow Family - Courtland, Virginia [Warning: Long post about slavery, but I tried keeping it PG]

Near the northwestern corner of the intersection of Buckhorn Quarter Road and US 58 (Southampton Parkway)

UPDATE! One of my favorite podcasts - More Perfect - did an episode on the Dred Scott case, its political impact, and its impact on the descendants of the affected families! You can find the episode here. Enjoy!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have arrived to Virginia now! I found this in/near Brunswick County (the home of the original Brunswick Stew, but that's another sign for another day). It looks like there's two parts to this story - one part on the family that owned him, and one part on Dred Scott himself - but actually it's all centered around Dred Scott.

Also, for you handful of Grinnellians reading this, I also dusted off my old Con Law book from Strauber's class:

• Constitutional Law: Cases in Context: Volume 1: Federal Governmental Powers and Federalism by James C. Foster and Susan M. Leeson (1998)

This book does NOT make me a constitutional law specialist/expert. But it does supplement the background we'll be going into prior to the case, as well as some legal analysis as to what's going on during the case itself.

Onwards to the past!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dred Scott, if many of you paid attention to US history class (probs not, that's fine), was a slave in the mid-1800s who is famous for suing for his freedom after he was sold to a family who lived in Missouri (slavery was illegal in Missouri, as it was in many of the territories at the time). He ends up as the plaintiff in a Supreme Court case, when he tried to sue for his freedom from slavery (he lost, btw). I will talk about how he ended up in front of the Supreme Court (or at least his lawyers did), as well as the implications of his case. Yeah, I know, that's what history class is for. But this is his story, and I'm telling it as fully as I can.

He was born around 1800 as a slave of the Blow family of Virginia (which was headed by Peter Blow at this time). Records from this time can be hard to come by, especially for records of slaves and slave families, so it's not clear whether Scott's parents were slaves of the Blow family, or if he was purchased by the Blow family soon after his birth (with or without his parents). Regardless, the sign indicates that the Blow plantation was near this sign at the time of Scott's birth, but soon moved to Huntsville, Alabama. Oakwood University, in Huntsville, now stands where the Blow's failed Alabaman plantation once stood. As a result, the Blow family moved to St. Louis, Missouri, and opened a boarding house.

Peter Blow, 1777-1832 (Source)

Though the Peter and Elizabeth Blow (patriarch and matriarch) passed away by 1832, their children remained in St. Louis and married themselves into local society. These connections will help Dred Scott later on in his story. I'm not sure of their specific birth order, but I know the girls were older than the boys. These are the marriages of the Blow children that I'm aware of.
------
Charlotte Taylor Blow - Joseph Charless, Jr. (Charless, Sr., established the first paper west of the Mississippi, and was a leading opponent of slavery while editor; Charless, Jr., ran a wholesale drug and paint store).
Martha Ella Blow - Charles Drake (attorney; had a big hand in removing rights of Southern sympathizers in the Missouri Constitution when it was created)
Peter Ethelrod Blow - Eugenie LaBeaume (one of her brothers was a wealthy businessman, and her other brother was an attorney who helped on Dred Scott's freedom suits)
Henry Taylor Blow - Minerva Grimsley Blow (daughter of a colonel, however, she has no role in Dred Scott's story as far as I understand)

Henry Taylor Blow (Source)

------
So, back to the main story!

So, at some point, Dred Scott was sold to a Dr. John Emerson, army surgeon. However, the details as to the timing of Dred Scott's sale relative to Peter Blow's death are unknown. Some think it happened prior to Peter Blow's death. Some think it happened afterwards, meaning his estate sold Dred Scott to Dr. Emerson. The most sure source of the timing of the sale was during Dred Scott's trial at the federal circuit court level, where Henry Taylor Blow testified that his father was the one to sell Scott to Dr. Emerson. Regardless, it happened.

Dr. Emerson was in town as a civilian surgeon at the Jefferson Barracks. On December 1, 1831, Dr. Emerson had to report to Fort Armstrong in IL, and sources definitely indicate that he owned Dred Scott at that point. After some time spent at Fort Armstrong, Dr. Emerson was transferred to a fort in the Wisconsin Territory. It was here where he met and married Harriet Robinson, a slave of the justice of the peace (this man also officiated their wedding, even if slave marriages weren't legally recongnized). The couple had two daughters that survived childhood, and two sons that did not make it past infancy.

Harriet Scott (Source)

This family moved back to St. Louis, Louisiana (where Dr. Emerson met and married his wife), back to St. Louis, back to the Wisconsin Territory, back to St. Louis (again!), and then to Davenport, Iowa (now known in the Quad Cities region, fun fact), where Dr. Emerson passed away in December 1843 (possibly from syphilis? Keep it together, people!). His wife inherited his estate and his slaves, including the Scotts. It was at this point Dred Scott sought freedom for himself and his family. When he offered to purchase his freedom from Dr. Emerson's widow, she refused (for $300, which is about $9,400 today). So what does one do when one wants to be free but their owner is being a [pick word here]? One sues, duh!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear reader, you've made it this far?! Amazing; I almost didn't make it myself. I know there's a lot going on with this post. I just sort of breezed through Dred Scott's background and through the family that owned him. But it helps to know those details, as they inform his case as it moved to the Supreme Court. And many lawyers know that the law is ALL about details, especially where details fall into grey areas.

At this point, I'll move into the case that will eventually be known to America as Dred Scott v. Sanford. It was important both in the context of how slaves were treated and in its implications for jurisdiction of cases (probably in ways that many Americans don't know of, as the majority of us do not live in territories anymore). So thank you for making it this far, and I hope you continue to stick with this!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So a little bit of a related side-track. Yes, slavery existed in the United States at this point. However, it wasn't universal; many abolitionists in public and in the federal government successfully kept the slave trade out of the country's many territories and new states due several compromises that were passed, but the latest one (at this point) that superseded them all was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This one will have the most impact, as it was the one in effect when the Supreme Court heard Dred Scott's case. Basically, it established Congressional non-intereference with slavery in terrirtories, but provided a legal course of appeal to the territorial courts and the Supreme Court regarding cases involving slavery (Foster & Leeson, page 151). As a result, many cases were filed asking the courts to intervene on the slavery status of many who resided in free territories or states.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So, back to the story! Dr. Emerson's wife refused to allow Dred and Harriett Scott to purchase their family's freedom, so in 1846, they sued separate suits for their freedom on the grounds that they had once lived on free soil (IL and WI), so therefore they should be free. This suit was allowed under a Missouri statute that allows one to sue that they were wrongfully slaved, which had specific steps on how to file such a petition (likely designed this way to prevent slaves from using it properly, as many couldn't read). This statute was part of the Black Code of the Missouri Territory, with the wrongful slavery statute removed by the end of the Civil War.

Anyways, I digress. The suit is heard by the Missouri Supreme Court; the hearing was allowed by a proslavery judge (impressive!) and even if Dred and Harriett Scott signed their respective petitions with X's. In 1852, the decision was handed down from the court; in Scott v. Emerson, the court ruled against Scott; in doing so, the court overruled a previous decision of theirs in Rachel v. Walker that held that the removal of a slave by its master to free soil made the slave forever free (Foster & Leeson, page 151). This ruling came about despite the fact that they moved against their will (they WERE slaves, after all) and a Missouri Supreme Court ruling in Winny v. Whitesides established that "once free, always free." Based on precedence of previous petitions under this same statute, it would be reflective of the proslavery judicial leanings; of 25 freedom suits heard by the Missouri Supreme Court, only one allowed freedom of the petitioner.

When he lost that, Dred Scott, along with the help of the Blow children and their spouses, filed suit again in Missouri for his freedom. But this time, he sued John F. A. Sanford (his name on the now-famous Supreme Court case is misspelled!) in the US Circuit Court for the District of Missouri (Foster & Leeson, page 152). John Sanford is Mrs. Emerson's brother; by this point, she moved to Massachusetts and had entrusted him with the administration of Dr. Emerson's estate. Since Sanford was a resident of New York, and Emerson lived in Missouri, Scott claimed diversity of citizenship to have the case heard at the federal, rather than the state, level (Foster & Leeson, page 152). Sanford defended that the federal court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, much less that Scott had standing to file it. In addition, Dred Scott filed suit for his whole family, not just for him and his wife, and filed for damages worth $9,000 (estimated to be $269,913.58 in current dollars).

The US Circuit Court claimed jurisdiction, and that Scott was "enough to be a citizen" to have standing, and heard the case (to which Sanford plead not guilty). The court instructed the jury that, under Missouri law, Scott is considered to be a slave and therefore Sanford's acts do not constitute false imprisonment or trespass (Foster & Leeson, page 152); the court ruled in favor of Sanford.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally! The Supreme Court case!

The Taney Court, with Taney sitting in the middle. The Chief Justice gets that seat for Court group photos. (Source)

Scott's team appealed to the Supreme Court (hereafter known as SCOTUS), and SCOTUS did not hear the case until February 1856 (Foster & Leeson, page 152). SCOTUS at this point was presided over Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who presided over a court that preferred more decentralized power and more states rights (a la our current Chief Justice Roberts). In the brief for Scott, they argued these four points (Foster & Leeson, pages 152-3):

• Jurisdiction shouldn't be an issue, because it was waived by a lower court (see the US Circuit court above)
• If jurisdiction is an issue, Scott should still be free due to his residency in Illinois which is a free state (and if not in IL, then by his residence in the free territory of Wisconsin)
• The fact that the slave trade is prohibited in 1808 signals the "founders' policy against slavery's extension"
• Scott's standing with regards to citizenship shouldn't be an issue, because the courts don't recognize "social distinction between whites and blacks". Free blacks are regarded as citizens, and Congress has extended citizenship to "Negroes" and "Indians" via naturalization. Therefore, Scott is a "quasi-citizen" that is entitled to be recognized by the courts (though not eligible to hold office or vote).

Sanford countered in his brief with these three points (Foster & Leeson, page 153):

• Scott is a person of color, and is not considered a citizen under the US Constitution. Therefore, he can't even invoke the diversity of citizenship standing
• The IL Constitution prohibits only the introduction of slavery into the state, not the influx of owners with slaves enslaved elsewhere. The rights of ownership were restored when the slave owners moved back into a slave state. Since Dr. Emerson never intended to establish domicile there, Scott was not entitled to freedom.
• While Congress is allowed to erect territorial governments, Congress has no power to "pass laws regarding the permanent governance of territory belonging to the US". That's all determined by territory and local governments.

Roger B. Taney, 5th Chief Justice, 1836-1864 (Source)

Taney's court asked to rehear the case, which they did in December 1856. They handed down their opinion on the matter in May 1857. They found against Dred Scott, saying that a "class of persons...are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution" (Foster & Leeson, page 154). They could not claim privileges that are accorded to the word "citizens", as they were "considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges" (Foster & Leeson, page 154). The majority opinion also considered the laws established by Congress that ensured "free" versus "slave" territories, and stated that "it is the opinion of [SCOTUS] that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in [the Wisconsin territory] is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void" (Foster & Leeson, page 156).

That is, in three swift, harsh phrases, they not only stated that Dred Scott couldn't even sue for his freedom, it's because he's of an "inferior class of beings." In addition, SCOTUS stated that federal legislation that establishes free territories are beyond Congress's capabilities outlined in the Constitution (as such legislation should be defined at the state/territory level).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So...what does all of this mean? What does this matter to me, a millenial or another person who happened to read this random person's blog?

Well, it kind of means a lot. Our country would have a much different history had SCOTUS went with a different opinion, even if the outcome remained the same. The way that the law works, especially with constitutional law practice, is that every word matters. For example, SCOTUS could have NOT referred to Dred Scott as a member of an "inferior class of beings", which would have affected not only many pieces of state-level legislation, but also could have affected social attitudes around race and class. And this is assuming the ultimate outcome of the Dred Scott case didn't change.

However, they didn't. By referring to blacks as an "inferior class," SCOTUS reinforced slavery as an American institution, and emphasized that certain races would be part of that institution. One could argue that whites were also "wrongfully enslaved", and they might have been, but they were not sold and bought like property (as blacks were often considered, even those who successfully purchased their freedom) so openly and explicitly compared to blacks. But I digress; that is definitely a discussion that, while related, could take over the original story of this particular post.

Some have said that the Dred Scott v. Sanford case helped cause the Civil War, and it certainly makes sense. Part of the reason why the South attempted to secede was due to what they believed the federal intrusion on their culture and institutions, as well as their ability to, basically, self-govern (this distrust with the federal government, particularly one that's strongly centralized, exists to this day). Indeed, part of what's revealed in some of my above digressions regarding slave and free states were burning hot topics of political and social discussions at the time, and the fight over how much of an institution slavery should be led to Congressmen beating each other up.

Political cartoon of the caning of Charles Sumner (Source)

Despite the ruling from SCOTUS, Dred Scott did receive his freedom! It turned out that Irene Emerson's second husband, Dr. Calvin Chaffee, was not only a Massachusetts Congressman, but a well-known abolitionist in the area. Before SCOTUS handed down their ruling, he found out how his wife owned one of the most nationally well-known slaves, and faced criticism of hypocrisy from many. He convinced his wife to transfer Dred and Harriett Scott's ownership to Taylor Blow (of the Blow family at the start of the story), on the condition that Irene receive the wages the Scott family earned over the last seven years ($750 at the time, or about $20,225 now). Dr. Chaffee had to do this due to Missouri law, that stated that a slave in Missouri can only be freed by a citizen/resident of Missouri.

Irene Emerson's second husband, Dr. Calvin Chaffee (Source)

And on May 26, 1857, Dred and Harriett Scott were formally freed in St. Louis. So there was a happy ending, despite SCOTUS! Sadly, Dred Scott himself passed away from tuberculosis on September 17, 1858. His daughter had children, and his wife, Harriett, was buried in Greenwood Cemetery in St. Louis when she passed in 1876. So Harriett Scott was able to witness not only the Emancipation Proclamation, but also the Fourteenth Amendment (which was the the Constitutional Amendment that made slavery unconstitutional, effectively overturning the Dred Scott ruling from SCOTUS). Well, I'm not sure if she had known what had happened; even hot topic news took a day or three to make it across the country.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If you made it this far, CONGRATULATIONS! YOU MADE IT! Definitely one of my longer posts. I sadly don't have any cookies or stuffed animals for this accomplishment. As my eighth grade science teacher used to say, you get a warm fuzzy feeling of happiness in your tummy.

If you didn't make it this far, well, you wouldn't be reading this. And then I don't know what to tell you.