The Dred Scott The United States Army

Who was Dred Scott? Dred Scott was born in Virginia about 1799 of the Peter Blow family. He had spent his entire life as a slave. Dred Scott moved to St. Louis with the Blows in 1830, but was soon sold due to his master's financial problems. He was purchased by Dr. John Emerson, a military surgeon, and

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.”#

“In 1847, Dred Scott first went to trial to sue for his freedom, (Dred Scott’s fight for freedom).” “While the immediate issue in this case was Dred Scott’s status, the court also had the opportunity to rule on the question of slavery in the territories, (Appleby et all, 446-447).” One of the main issues of this case was that the justices were trying to settle a political problem rather than being completely fair in their decisions. Dred lost the first trial but was granted a second trial. The next year the Missouri Supreme Court decided that the case should be retried, (Dred Scott’s fight for freedom). In 1850, the Circuit Court of St. Louis County

　　　　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 born in Southampton County Virginia and served the Peter Blow family growing up. As an adult he moved with the Blow family to St Louis Missouri and was sold to Dr. John Emerson. Dr. Emerson was an army surgeon. He was appointed to many different military posts and took Scott along with him, from Fort Armstrong in Illinois to Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin territory. Both of these forts were on

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 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.

In April of 1846, Dred and Harriet Scott filed a suit for "freedom" against Irene Emerson in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, obviously under the jurisdiction of Missouri law. The established legal principle of Missouri at this time regarding slavery was "once free, always free". In other words, to the Missouri courts, what Scott was doing was perfectly acceptable due to the precedent of the Missouri case Rachael v. Walker (1837), which basically stated that if a slave was taken by his or her master to a free state that slave was then "entitled to freedom by virtue of residence in the free state or territory" [Oxford, 761]. On account of this alone, Scott and his wife would have been freed when the case came to trial in 1847, however there was a problem of hearsay evidence in the case and the judge declared it a mistrial. It was not until three years later in 1850 that the court was able to correct the problem and unfalteringly sided with the Scott's and ordered them freed, citing that once he had been in free territory, he was indirectly freed and remained freed. By this time Mrs. Emerson had married, moved to New England with her new husband, and left these affairs and ownership of the Scotts to her brother, John F. A. Sanford. After Scott was declared free by the courts, Sanford sought an appeal from the Missouri Supreme Court. In 1852 in, Scott v. Emerson, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the decision by the lower court seeing this case now not as the

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

Sanford was another hot political issue. Dred Scott and his wife were taken to a free state by their master, and the ruling on this case stated that Scott was still legally bound to his master and must remain a slave. This decision was based on three main factors. The first factor was that Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in Federal court. The second factor was that it was unconstitutional for Congress to outlaw slavery in a territory. The last factor stated that although Scott and his family were heading in and out of Free states, it did not affect their standing as slaves.

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

An early event that sparked the fuse that led to South Carolina secession was the court case Dred Scott v. Sandford. This court case was a national debate over slavery. Dred Scott was born as a slave to the Peter Blow family and when the family sold Scott to Dr. John Emerson, he eventually moved to Illinois and Minnesota. By 1843 Scott sought freedom for his family and himself, he offered $300 to Emerson 's widow and when she refused, he went to St. Louis Circuit Court to filed a suit for their freedom. His first two trials was lost due to hearsay evidence and the rights of the slave owners must be uphold at all costs. However the question was

Then Bay relied on the testimony of Samuel Russell, who told the court that he had hired the Scotts from Mrs. Emerson, paying Mrs. Emerson’s father, Alexander Sanford, money for their use. The case of Dred Scott was about a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before he was brought back to the slave state of Missouri, Scott had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes that he would be granted his freedom. In the ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that slaves were not citizens of the United States, therefore Scott could not expect any protection from the Federal Government or the courts. The Opinion of the Federal Government stated that congress had no authority to ban slavery from a Federal

     Dred Scott was held as a slave to Missouri resident Dr. John Emerson. In1834 Scott traveled with Dr. Emerson to the state of Illinois, and in 1836 to areas of present day Minnesota only to finally return back to Missouri in 1838. Slavery was forbidden in the state of Illinois and under the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was also forbidden in the traveled areas of Minnesota. Upon the death of his owner, Scott sued for his freedom on the grounds that since slavery was outlawed in the free territories he had temporarily resided in, he had become a “free” man there. While an initial ruling by a lower state court declared him free, this ruling was later overturned by the Missouri Supreme

It has been presented to the Supreme Court of the United States of America that Mr. Dred Scott pleas for freedom from his slave master, Mr. Sanford. Initially Mr. Scott was owned by Dr. Emerson until Mr. Emerson’s death when Scott was sold to Mr. Sanford. Under intense scrutiny and discernment it has been decided by the Supreme Court that Mr. Dred Scott has the inalienable right to be a free citizen of the United States of America. Scott is a slave, owned by Mr. and Mrs. John Emerson since 1836. Scott currently resides in St. Louis, Missouri as of 1830. Mr. Dred Scott has presided residence in both Illinois and Wisconsin Territory, accompanied by his slaveholder. The Illinois and Wisconsin Territories are free, meaning that no man nor woman can be private property of another. Because of this, Mr. Emerson has no control nor jurisdiction over Scott. Mr. Scott resided in free territory for several years, therefore, he must leave this courtroom as a free man. Although slavery is not abolished in the South, it is abolished in both of the territories that Scott visited during his involvement with Mr. Emerson, making it his right to be free. It is of the slaveholder’s duty to not enter the territories of Illinois and Wisconsin expecting his slave to maintain in his possession. The responsibility is left on Mr. Emerson and it is due to his ignorance that his slave will gain freedom today. Slavery is prohibited in both territories, making it unreasonable that a man should remain a