Dred Scott: The Blow Family

Dred Scott was born in 1799. It is unclear exactly where Mr. Scott was born, or how the Blow family was able to obtain Dred Scott. However, it was clear that he was born a slave, property his entire life. He was a slave of the Peter Blow family (The Dred Scott Decision-Northern Abolitionist, 1996). However, due to financial problems, his master had to sell him. It took several years to sell him because of his age. He was purchased by a military surgeon, Dr. John Emerson. As a result of the military policy, Dr. Emerson was reassigned to military bases throughout free slave territories in the mid-west, mainly St. Louis, Illinois (Ryan, 2014). Slavery had been prohibited by the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (Dred Scott's Fight for Freedom, 2014).

As a result, Dred Scott was a free slave.
Dred Scott was able to live a fairly unrestricted life in St. Louis. Slavery in Missouri was a further reformed type of slavery. In the nineteenth century, the life of an African American would be completely different in the cities, than on a southern plantation. Slavery was unprofitable in cities such as St. Louis, African Americans were often hired out to others without transfer of ownership (The Dred Scott Decision-Northern Abolitionist, 1996). The African American community adapted and fended without a master. Unlike in the south, Missouri allowed slaves to marry. Soon after several years in St. Louis, Dred married another free African American, Harriet Robinson (History of Dred Scott, 2014). They had two children, Eliza and Lizzie. In order to make money for their families, some masters allowed the slaves to rent out himself (The Dred Scott Decision-Northern Abolitionist, 1996). This taught African American how to be economical. Men commonly worked as handymen, janitors, or in a lead or salt mine; Women generally worked as maids, nannies, and laundresses (The Dred Scott Decision-Northern Abolitionist, 1996). It was infrequent to see a slave in the St. Louis area picking cotton, if they were on a field it usually would be to farm. They opened up a wide-range of different businesses throughout the free territories.
African Americans were given the freedom to acquire any information they desire. Of course, some slaves were not satisfied with this partial freedom. Which in turn, intrigued other African Americans. Many African Americans learned to read and write. Then those African Americans began to read newspapers aloud to others at night or on Sunday (The Dred Scott Decision-Northern Abolitionist, 1996). They were interested in finding the answer to their freedom. As work became gradually scarce, African Americans began to save more and more money for buy back their freedom. Some of the more successful African Americans would actually succeed in buying one family member’s freedom at a time. An average healthy male slave sold for about $500 in 1850, roughly about $14,000 in today’s money (The Dred Scott Decision-Northern Abolitionist, 1996). Eventually, their entire family would be bought and legally free. However, for the average African American that amount of money would take a couple years per family member. This would push many to starting businesses with continuous revenue along with doing other side jobs. Such as; importing and exporting goods, real estate, even barber emporiums (The Dred Scott Decision-Northern Abolitionist, 1996).
Before Dred Scott could save enough money to buy him and his family’s freedom Mr. Emerson returned to, a legal slavery territory, St. Louis. Tragically, shortly after the move his master died and Dred Scott’s life of freedom began to look further from reality. He was no longer considered free. America had accepted the Scott family back into southern society, not as a Southern Americans, but as a southern slaves. Mrs. John Emerson, the master’s late wife, began to hire out Scott’s entire family to other families for services (Dred Scott Case NPS, 2014). This prompted him to chase freedom for him and his family as he watched in St. Louis. He knew he was a slave, but he wanted equal rights for his family. He enjoyed his freedom and did not want his family to live a slave life.
Researchers are unsure the exact reason why Mr. Scott chose this time to petition for his freedom. Whether it was Dred Scott’s dissatisfaction because he and his family were hired out, or Mrs. Emerson planning to sell his family, even Dred Scott denied the purchase of his family’s freedom (Fehrenbacher, 1983). After further investigation, I believe it was a combination of all three. Dred Scott did not want his family working as slaves. Dred Scott was illiterate, but he still understood that traveling to Missouri, he could sue for his freedom using their “once free, always free” law. This pushed Dred to seek his freedom through the judicial system. He knew this was a daunting task, due to the time period this event took place. Reading in St. Louis taught him to utilize his resources. He knew that in a petition was submitted with sufficient evidence the plaintiff, European or African, was being wrongfully held, the judge would allow one to sue (MISSOURI STATE ARCHIVES: Missouri's Dred Scott Case, 1846-1857, 2007-2014). Although Dred worked for the years he was in St. Louis he did not have enough money or a lawyer to represent him in the court of law. He needed help with his suit. The Scott’s minister, John Anderson, was influential in their decision to sue and this original owners, the Blow family, back him financially (Dred Scott Case NPS, 2014). Dred Scott was able begin his momentous journey to freedom for him and his family.
Many people think that Dred Scott vs Sanford was just one trail and decision. However, Mr. Scott underwent a series of trails. Scott’s first trial began in June of 1847 (Dred Scott's Fight for Freedom, 2014). It was his initial attempt at freedom. Dred Scott sue Mrs. Emerson for him and his family’s freedom. He lost the ruling due to a technicality. The court could not determine whose property Dred Scott actually was. They could not declare Mrs. Emerson the owner because, in 1847, women could not own any property or land. Mrs. Emerson claimed she transferred the Scotts over to her brother John Sanford and with Mr. Emerson dead, no one could determine his true master, consequently the judge threw out the case due to lack of evidence (Dred Scott's Fight for Freedom, 2014). This initial trial did not deter him too easily, actually it made him fight a little hard for his freedom. The second trail, was held in a similar location as the first one so he had the same jury. Thus, when he had his retrial the jury heard the evidence and decided that the Scott family should be free (Ryan, 2014). Due to slaves being very valuable in the south, Mrs. Emerson did not want to give up the fight either. She did not want to lose the Scotts, so she appealed her case to the Missouri State Supreme Court, which over turned the ruling in (Dred Scott's Fight for Freedom, 2014).
This also fueled the fire of the court ruling against Dred Scott.

The court was going to uphold the rights of slave-owners in the state at all costs (Ryan, 2014). The south wanted to impose their rule on north. The country was divided on the slavery issue. Not all Americans agreed with slavery. Dred Scott was able to find a team of lawyers that hated all forms of slavery. The wanted to do everything they could to help free his family. His team took his case to federal court, the United States Circuit Court in Missouri (Dred Scott's Fight for Freedom, 2014). It was difficult to determine the biases of the nine justices on slavery. Nonetheless, his team presented Mr. Scott’s case as best as they could. Chief Justice Roger Taney delivered the verdict. Seven of the nine justices agreed on the most momentous events in African American History. He ruled that no slave of African ancestry could not become a citizen of the United States, therefore prohibiting the right to sue. Moreover, they ruled that the federal government had no right to prohibit slavery in the new territories (History of Dred Scott, 2014). They used the constitution as evidence. They ruled that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional. They indicated that slavery could not be outlawed or restricted within the United States (The Dredd Scott Decision (32a.), 2008-2014). It depriving a citizen the right of their own

property.
This event was momentous for the African American culture.

It began numerous events that led up to freeing of all slaves. Anti-slavery leader, Abraham Lincoln, in the North read about the controversial Supreme Court decision and was disgusted with the verdict and vowed to prohibit slavery in all territories of American (The Dred Scott Decision-Northern Abolitionist, 1996). Conversely, many southern Americans agreed with the court decision and wanted to extend southern culture throughout the nation (The Dred Scott Decision-Northern Abolitionist, 1996). They wanted to use a means of Cultural Hegemony throughout the nation in order for complete control of the union.

What is cultural hegemony? How does it relate to the Dred Scott decision? Cultural hegemony is the idea that one nation or culture, either direct or merely by their dominant position in the world, exerts their influence into how other cultures should conduct themselves (what is cultural hegemony). This describes American to the rest of the

world.
From the beginning, Europeans have continuously imposed their western beliefs on all races of the world. Europeans manipulate cultures in adopting their western beliefs. Cultural hegemony can be considered thoroughly brainwashing a culture from the youngest child to the eldest adult. They make it seem as if their technique is a better solution to their issues. Many different cultures discoveries, philosophies, even inventions revised, then mirror by the European culture. All the while, slowly erasing the culture from the minds of Americans. Cultures have continuously been programmed and mentally destroyed.
The bigger issue is that most have not recognized this reality that still goes on today. Films, television programs, music, even printed materials reinforce the American way of life. These elements have influenced people politically, religiously, even in culture matters. We as a culture must use Dredd Scott, as a role model. Even against all odds he fought for what he stood for. He did not allow society’s influences to deter him from his goals for him and his family. He was illiterate and little income, yet his case was one of the United States Supreme Court’s most historic cases. Dred Scott showed courage, strength and perseverance. After a long fight, and the court ruling, Scott’s strength did not go unnoticed. Dred Scott and his family was granted freedom by his original family. The Blows bought him and his family’s freedom.