In particular, they had contradicting laws concerning the status of slaves should they move to a state that abolished slavery. Following the case of Somerset v. Stewart, in which an English court ruled that an escaped American slave was free because he had landed on English soil, the North and the South developed different interpretations of the decision. “In some northern states…sojourning rights were acknowledged and specified by statute…southern courts, for their part, consistently ruled that a slave to live permanently in a Free State or territory was thereby emancipated”. Naturally, these contradictions propelled the Dred Scott case to national prominence. Because Dred Scott had resided in a free territory for a number of years with his master, most northern courts would declare him a free man, but southern courts would argue that he was not free because he had moved back to a slave state …show more content…
After a series of court delays and subsequent appeals from Scott’s new owner, Irene Emerson, a St. Louis circuit court reviewed the case in 1848. In Scott v. Emerson, Scott’s counsel asserted that because Scott had been living in a free territory with his master at Fort Snelling, in the Wisconsin Territory. Citing the previous case of Rachel v. Walker, in which a slave was set free because she had resided in a free territory, they argued that Scott and his family are free because they had lived in the north for four years. Judge Alexander Hamilton, known for his sympathy for freedom cases, sided with the Scotts, declared Scott free. Not willing to give up, Emerson appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court in 1850 and the case opened in 1852. This time, luck was not on Scott’s side due to the newly decided Supreme Court decision of Strader v. Graham. Written by none other than pro-Southern Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court’s decision stated “Every state has an undoubted right to determine the status, or domestic and social condition of the persons domiciled within its territory except insofar as the powers of the states in this respect are restrained, or duties and obligations imposed upon them, by the Constitution of the United States”. In short, the state decides by