Cody Wandersee. Prof. Angela Rush. Intro To Constitutional

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

What did the trial court do? Who won and lost? What did the trial court say?

For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).

In 1846, a slave living in Missouri named Dred Scott, sued for his freedom on the basis that he had lived for a total of seven years in territories that were closed to slavery. Scott's owner had been an army doctor named John Emerson. Emerson's position had required him to move several times in a relatively short amount of time. During his time with Emerson, Scott had lived in the state of Illinois, which was

In 1846 Scott sued his master for his freedom, asserting that his sojourns in free jurisdictions made him free. After numerous delays, trials, and retrials, the case reached the Supreme Court in 1856. The court responded with nine separate opinions, and Chief Justice Roger Brook Taney delivered the deciding opinion. The ruling was both complex and controversial: the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress did not have authority to limit the expansion of slavery; slavery was found to be legal in the territories until the citizens voted for or against it; and Africans and their descendants were found to be ineligible for citizenship in the United States as the framers of the Constitution had not viewed Africans as citizens. Since African Americans were not viewed by the court as citizens, they could not file suit. Despite the finality of the court 's

Phillis Wheatley was only seven or eight years old when he was captured and taken from her home in West Africa. She was put on a slave ship and taken to Boston in 1761. A man who went by the name John Wheatley, who knew nothing of her future talents, purchased the young girl directly from the ship. The first thing John did was gave her was a name, it was Phillis Wheatley. Phillis was made a slave and did work around the house, like cooking and cleaning.

At the age of nineteen, Ellis enlisted in the Civil War. He served in Company “A”, Forty-Ninth Indiana Volunteers, beginning on September 25, 1861. For two-and-a-half years, Ellis fought in many battles until harshly wounded at Champion Hill in mid-1863. Although he would suffer from these wounds for the rest of his life, Ellis readmitted himself to military service in early 1864. He fought until the conclusion of the war a year later. (History 759) As

Dr. Albert Priddy was the superintendent of the State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded at Lynchburg he supported the population through the eugenics

Rachel vs. Walker Case which states that if a slave returns to Missouri and is not owned as Dred Scott did there

Emerson treated the entire family as his salves (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_dred.html). Just before the suit was filed, Dr. Emerson sold Dred Scott, Harriet, and their two children to John F. A. Sandford. Sandford, considering the Scott family his slaves, "laid hands on them and imprisoned them" many times (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_dred.html). These actions would be considered legal if Harriet, Lizzie, Eliza, and Dred Scott were his slaves. Dred Scott wanted to challenge this. Due to the Missouri Compromise, Illinois and the territory where Dr. Emerson had taken Dred Scott and purchased Harriet, were free (Independence Hall Association 2013). Dred Scott sued his owner, John Sandford, for assaulting himself, and his family. Scott openly admitted he was born a slave and of African descent, but he also argued that once his owner took him and his family to a free state and territory to exist in, his family became free from slavery. And since they were free when Sandford moved them back to Missouri, Scott claimed it was illegal for Sandford to assault him and his family. Scott also claimed he should be legally considered a citizen by the state. These are the ideas on which Scott pursued to sue Sandford. His declaration specifically had three counts: that Sandford assaulted Dred Scott that Sandford had assaulted Harriet,

Perhaps one of the most well documented cases of slave breeding comes from the plantation being tended by Robert W. Campbell. Mr. Campbell was the brother-in-law of President James K. Polk. In one letter, Mr. Campbell promises to buy him young female slaves for the purpose of forced mating, because President Polk had a great proportion of young male slaves on his “farm.” So, the forced breeding of slaves ran through even the highest-ranking office in the country, that of the

also for Dred V. Sanford the court also ruled that congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories. The court then

Marion’s husband, Anton Arnold Pritchard, was a U.S. soldier who transferred to U.N.R.R.A. Marion married Anton on April 18, 1947. Shortly after marrying, she and her husband made the voyage to America where they planned to start a family. Marion worked for a short time before having children (Oral History Interview).

A few specific slave women were brought

He went back to the university in 1880 and acquired his Bachelor of Medicine and his Master of Surgery degree. Then he went on the Mayumba, serving as ship’s surgeon again, for his first gainful employment. It navigated between Liverpool and the West Coast of Africa. He found Africa “detestable” and quite as soon as they were back in England. Facing the prospect of having to file for bankruptcy, he moved to Portsmouth to open his first practice. He struggled with trying to be a good doctor and become a recognized author. This earned him a fairly decent salary.