The Case Of Dred Scott Essay

Unfortunately for the Scotts the circuit ruled in favor of Mrs. Emerson. The Scotts however were allowed to refile their suit and in 1850,in a third trial, Scott is declared a free man on the basis of having lived in non-slavery territories of Wisconsin and Illinois. Mrs. Emerson however filed an appeal and the Missouri Supreme Court returned Scott to slavery. After filing suit once more and losing the case, this time against John Sanford, Irene’s brother who was presumably Scotts new owner, Scott’s lawyers appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court in 1856.The Supreme Court’s decision would “affect not only him, but all black people in the United States.”#

John granted their request and they married. Harriet and Dred had two sons who died during infancy and two daughters, Eliza and Lizzie. In 1842, the Emersons and the Scotts returned to St. Louis, (The Life of Dred Scott). Dred’s residency in the Upper Louisiana Territory and Illinois gave him the right to become free, but at this time he did not know his rights. When John died in 1843, his widow hired him out to an army captain. While under the Army captain’s command, he tried to find freedom for his family. When Mrs. Emerson refused his offer of three-hundred dollars for their freedom, he decided to take legal action, (Dred Scott’s fight for freedom). These legal actions led to a series of long legal battles. The Blow brothers provided the Scott Family with legal and finical help for court.

　　　　Slavery was at the root of the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott sued his master to obtain freedom for himself and his family. His argument was that he had lived in a territory where slavery was illegal; therefore he should be considered a free man. Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia around 1800. Scott and his family were slaves owned by Peter Blow and his family. He moved to St. Louis with them in 1830 and was sold to John Emerson, a military doctor. They went to Illinois and the Wisconsin territory where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Dred Scott married and had two

Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom. He said that because he was a slave taken to a free state, even though he was brought back to a slave state, made him free. The court ruled that a free or enslaved African American was not a U.S. citizen and they could not sue in federal court. Also, they ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. Abolitionists were not happy at the court’s decision.

Born in 1800, Dred Scott was sold to army surgeon, John Emerson. Eliza, John’s wife, gives the custody of Dred and Harriet Scott to his brother, John Sanford. Dred Scott wanted to demand what all enslaved people wanted: his freedom. Emerson’s profession was surgery and

Dred Scott vs. Sanford – Dred Scott, a slave from Missouri, owned by an army surgeon who had taken Scott into Illinois and Wisconsin where slavery was forbidden. Now, the surgeon’s brother was claiming ownership of Scott. The court was extremely divided but eventually declared that Scott didn’t have a case because he wasn’t a legal citizen.

Dred Scott was a slave to Peter Blow family who suffered financial constraints then later sold Scott to a surgeon John Emerson. Emerson moved with Scott to Fort Snelling where slavery was not allowed by Missouri Compromise. During his period at Fort Snelling, Scott married Harriet Robinson a slave too with whom they had two children. Emerson and Scott’s family later moved back to St Louis in the year 1940 where they lived. In 1946 Dr. Emerson passed on, and Scott’s family was left behind with Emerson’s widow as their master. After Dr. Emerson demise, Scott sued Emerson’s family arguing that by him having stayed in Fort Snelling, he had attained his freedom while there and he was a free man. In sought of his freedom, the case was presented to State court, but unfortunately, he lost in case. The case was appealed, and in the year 1857, the case was ruled out by Chief Justice Roger Taney. In the ruling, the court ruled out that, Scotts was not allowed to claim any US citizenship as blacks who were salves or free were not allowed to do so. The ruling also claimed that Scotts had never been free as he was a slave and they were considered as personal property (Konig, Finkelman, & Bracey, 2010). The ruling led to consequences and effects in the US that affected the country politically, culturally and legally as outlined in the paper.

Many times during our class discussions and lectures we tried to examine the stages leading up to the succession and Civil War in America. During the critical time period of the middle 19th century, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision of the Supreme Court was one of those major treads on the pathway to secession. The man Dred Scott was taken to Missouri with Peter Blow as a slave from Virginia and sold. His new master from Missouri then moved to the free state of Illinois for a while, but later moved back to Missouri. Following his master 's passing, Scott asserted that since he had resided in a free state, he was inevitably a free citizen.

Missouri state court declared Scott to be a free man in 1850. During the time that the

Dred Scott (c. 1799 – September 17, 1858) was an enslaved African American man in the United States who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom and that of his wife and their two daughters in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as the "Dred Scott Decision". Scott claimed that he and his wife should be granted their freedom because they had lived in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory for four years, where slavery was illegal. The United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott 's temporary

family of Missouri. Emerson soon died in 1846 making Scott sue for his freedom. He soon lost the case in a state

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

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,

People do not acknowledge the struggles that African Americans had to endure for them to be treated equally, the way a true American is supposed to be treated. One of the ways they were not treated equally was by not being able to participate in sports with whites. From the beginning of our nation, colored people were highly disrespected and treated as if they were some type of animals, which have no say in what happens to them. They were not given any opportunities and were treated harshly because their skin color was different. Whites were able to practically do anything they wanted, unlike blacks, who were racially discriminated or beaten for no apparent reason. African Americans were among the worst treated races in the US; however,

Dred Scott was forced to travel around with his owner, a United States army surgeon, Dr. John Emerson. Dr. Emerson was assigned to Fort Armstrong located in Illinois. As of 1818, when Illinois became a state, its state constitution declared it a free state (Gunderson 16). Although illegal, Scott was still forced to work as a slave for his master. Dr. Emerson soon requested a transfer from Fort Armstrong which was quickly answered; his new post was at Fort Snelling. Fort Snelling was located in a newly created Wisconsin Territory near present-day St. Paul, Minnesota where slavery had been banned since 1820 (Gunderson 16). As Dr. Emerson continued to be dissatisfied with many of the forts he traveled without his slaves for a while and met his wife