In a deposition submitted by Second Lieutenant Miles H. Clark, who was stationed at Ft.Snelling with Dr. Emerson (Mrs. Emerson's deceased husband and original slave owner), Mr. Clark states the position of Mr. Scott, "I knew the negro man named Dred, who is the plaintiff in this suit. I first knew Dred some time in the year of 1834, at Rock island in the state of Illinois. He was then a servant belonging to Doctor Emeerson, who was there an Assistant Surgeon in the [U.S. Army] and was stationed there at rock island. He was held in service there by Doctor Emerson as a slave from the time I first knew him until April or May of 1836." [2]

Soon after Mr. Scott filed a petition to sue Mrs. Irene Emerson, in November of 1846, both Mr. Scott and his wife filed petitions of false imprisonment and brought up charges o

The Democratic South also had its own rebuttal of the decision, "Never perhaps, in the history of the country, has there existed so much bitterness between the North, and the South as within the past year. And it is remarkable that this bitterness has resulted not from measures so much as from transient excuses. The troubles in Kansas and some other accidental acts contributed to this state of things. But the chief cause of alienation was the unbridled license of a portion of the press and the intemperate language employed by many of our public speakers. It has been common for some of the ablest journals of the North to misrepresent and vilify the institutions and the people of the South. And these attacks have been reciprocated by some of the radical papers of the South. Orators have resorted to the same practice. Under such circumstances, what else but bitterness and alienation could follow? What else but distrust be excited?" [8] This however was not the end of the "alienation" that the South, as well as the North, would soon feel.

3. Congress has no rightful power to prohibit Slavery in the Territories: hence the Missouri Restriction was unconstitutional.

In 1847, The Circuit Court ruled in favor of Mrs. Emerson, and in a second trial in the Circuit Court in 1850, a second jury decides that the Scott family deserves to be free. In the years between 1852 and 1857, the battle between Mrs. Emerson and the Scott family continued. The Supreme Court ruling that ultimately interpreted the Constitution, at the time, is titled ,"Scott vs. Sandford". Actually it was a misspelling in Mr. John Sanford's name by a court cleric that remains on the case title to this day. Mr. Sanford is the brother to Mrs. Emerson, and had assumed the responsibility of Mr. Emerson's estate after his passing. Because Mr. Sanford is a resident of New York and not of Missouri, Scott and his lawyers were forced to file suit against Mr.Sanford in federal court. [5]

Some topics in this essay:
St Louis, Dred Scott, Supreme Court, North South, Missouri Restriction, Justice Taney, Missouri Compromise, Irene Emerson, United States--even, Emerson Emerson's, dred scott, st louis, supreme court, circuit court, scott family, st louis circuit, louis circuit, louis circuit court, missouri compromise, scott wife, irene emerson, circuit court granted, justice taney, constitution united entitled, sue irene emerson,