Although the case was completely legal, there were difficulties that Scott, such as being able to prove the legitimacy of his ability, and therefore, lost many cases. The case was tried on June 30, 1847. However, due to a legal technicality—Scott was unable to prove that Eliza Emerson was his owner, and the court favored the defendant. Scott then had to file for a retrial. Scott faced many difficulties in trying to having his cases pass through court as he was faced with not only the fact that he was an undermined slave, but also that he would have to fight more aggressively to prove legitimacy. Then, Scott's claim to freedom was invalid as congress had an inability to exclude slavery from territories. However, Congress holds the power to “make all needful Rules and Regulations”, and therefore had the power to prohibit slavery. …show more content…
Ultimately, while facts were present, there was controversy, in which the court had faced inabilities to account for constitutionality and legitimacy, in the MO compromise, Scott’s slave status and the issue of rights. Although he may have not received the liberation that he wanted, he ultimately started the push for abolishing slavery. There are times in which unfair trials transpire, however, for the betterment of himself, and ultimately society, Dred Scott continually pushed for his liberation that should have been granted. This case seized an already split nation, and divided it even further, allowing the start of the United States of America’s ascent for the Civil War. Although Dred Scott was not granted the freedom he deserved, he propelled the nation forward to embed racial equality in American