The author Don E. Fehrenbacher was a professor of American history at Stanford University. He won the Pulitzer Prize in 1979 for the Dred Scott case and also won the Pulitzer Prize in 1977 for "The Impending Crisis." He received his doctorate in American history from the University of Chicago. Fehrenbacher was a very intelligent man, he was a professor for 31 years at Stanford while also writing books, but revisiting Dred Scott was a risky choice because Dred Scott v. Sanford was a case that has been revisited many times before. Don E. Fehrenbacher delves into the Dred Scott case like never before. To understand the Dred Scott case we must understand the Dred Scott situation. Dred Scott was born in 1795 in Virginia. It was moved with its owner to Alabama in 1818 to Peter Blow's farm. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Once Blow's farm closed, Scott was sold to U.S. Army surgeon John Emerson. Dred Scott was then taken to Fort Armstrong, Illinois and Fort Snelling, Wisconsin. Both of these places, although they prohibited slavery, Dred Scott failed to gain freedom. Scott married Harriet Robinson. Harriet's owner was Major Lawrence Taliaferro, he was an Indian agent. In 1837, Dred Scott's owner, Emerson, was assigned a military post in St. Louis, Missouri. Emerson let Scott and his wife rent for work. This went on for a year before Emerson sent for them after resigning from the army. On the journey back to Emerson, Scott had a baby girl, Eliza, born in a free state. She has technically been a free person her entire life. Emerson was reassigned to the Army where he served in the Seminole War. Emerson died in 1843, but his wife continued to rent Scott's services for three years after Emerson's death. After three years had passed, Scott attempted to buy his family and his freedom. After Mrs. Emerson refused to accept any purchases, Scott had to take legal action. In 1846, Dred and Harriet both filed separate suits for their freedom. Both brought suit against Irene Emerson based on Missouri Statutes that gave any black person the right to sue for wrongful enslavement. The other statute stated that any person brought to a free state was granted freedom and could not become a slave again. Since Dred and Harriet had both lived in a free state, this would mean that they should have been granted freedom when Dred was first moved to Illinois. Dred and his wife could not read or write and needed a lot of support to plead their case. Fortunately, the church they attended helped them as well as the Blow family, the ones who previously owned Dred Scott. Since they lived in free states, they hoped they could use it as a key to securing their freedom. Scott's first attempt at court did not go so well. Scott had three different lawyers during the trial. Unfortunately, Scotts lost on a technicality saying that Scott had proof of being a slave to Irene Emerson. Scott was granted a new trial in 1847. The new trial did not begin until 1850 due to certain circumstances. In the second trial the quibble was cleared up when Adeline Russell admitted that she had rented Scott's work while he was in a free state. The jury ruled in favor of Scott and his family. Irene Emerson could not bear to lose four slaves and money, so in 1852 she went to the supreme court andappealed the sentence of the second trial. The sentence was overturned and it was stated that Dred Scott and his wife should seek freedom in a free state. Dred Scott and his family went back and forth through the legal system fighting for their right to become citizens. He sued his owner in 1853, John Sanford, for illegal slavery and assault on his family. In 1854, the Dred Scott case ended up in the United States Supreme Court where it was historically called Dred Scott v. Sanford. Now that we have the complete background of the book we can dive deeper into Don Fehrenbacher's book. For starters let me say that I loved this book, it falls right into my field of interest. Fehrenbacher is very down to earth and very knowledgeable about American history. Fehrenbacher comes out in the first few pages and addresses the concept that early blacks were used as servants just like some white indentured servants. He also points out that some white indentured servants were taken from their homes while all black slaves were torn from their homes. Fehrenbacher later addresses the three-fifths rule, yes, this was used in the constitution, but the three-fifths rule was to say that a slave is worth three-fifths of a free man. As a reader, this makes my book much more interesting because he does so at the beginning of the book, he came out guns blazing. The Dred Scott case was so vital in history, this had a major impact in leading to the Civil War. . He then begins to discuss the many ways slavery is present in the Constitution. The thing that stands out the most is when he brought up the Fugitive Slave Act. The Fugitive Slave Act got to the point where every slave had to go back to their owners even if they were free or in a free state. This came directly from Article 4 of our Constitution. The author argued that this was an attempt to limit state authority, but it turned into an expansion of federal authority. Fehrenbacher provided a lot of information by looking at the Dred Scott case, the most interesting thing to learn was the infamous quote: “Negros have no rights which the white man is bound to respect”. The reason why the misquote became the most major controversy of the majority opinion is because Taney originally revised the opinion instead of publishing it directly. The other two reportedly published their opinions without revising them. Taney edited the original opinion from 37 pages to 55 pages. Fehrenbacher further elaborates on Taney's opinion, the majority opinion was 7-2 against Dred Scott was the one to whom the opinion was addressed majority said the question is simple, after Taney asked the question, Fehrenbacher says the energy shifted from whether Dred Scott and his family could be granted freedom and to whether Dred Scott and his family were considered citizens of the United States. The court ruled against Scott and his family, because under Article III of the Constitution blacks could never benefit from diversity of citizenship. It was determined that slaves and their ancestors were not meant to be part of the political landscape of American society. The whole case was a huge impetus to the civil war. This case damaged the cause of the Republican Party. The ruling on this case saw this as a move to try to make slavery legal in every state in the country. An Illinois state politician opposed this and spoke out. This man was Abraham Lincoln, one of the greatest.