Scott V Sandford

**Fact's of The Case:

Dred Scott was born in Virginia around 1799. He was born a slave and, his master was Dr. John Emerson. Dr. Emerson took Scott to Illinois, which was a free state. Dr. Emerson died in 1843 and he gave his possessions to his wife Irene. Scott asked if he could buy his freedom from Irene, but she said no. Scott sued Mrs. Emerson for "false imprisonment and battery". Scott claimed that he had become free when he lived in a free state but then was taken against his will to a slave state again. Scott thought that he should be free since he was technically free before. Mrs. Emerson moved to Massachusetts in 1850 and left her brother to deal with the case, therefore, the case is names Scott v. Sanford.

-Lacee Dupart

Dred Scott was a slave originally born a slave in Virgina around 1799. His owners name was Dr. John Emerson, who was a surgeon in the U.S army. Dr. John Emerson bought Scott in Missouri and then moved to Illinois. Also, Illinois is a free a state. In 1836, Scott and Emerson moved to Fort Snelling in present-day Minnesota. In 1820 they had prohibited slavery in that area. Emerson had bought another slave named Harriet, Harriet and Scott got married in 1836. In 1838 Emerson and the Scotts moved back to Missouri. Emerson died in 1843 and left all his possessions including the Scoots to his widow, Irene. Dred Scott still felt like he had the right to be free, so he decided to get a lawsuit against the Stanford's. So he did, Irene seemed to not want to deal with the case or the lawsuit so she decided to leave and moved to Massachusetts. She left her brother John F.A.Stanford to deal with the case. Of course Dred Scott won the case, because all the points he was saying made sense and his main issue was that he wanted to be FREE.

*Ashley McCall***

Dred Scott was born a slave around 1799. In 1834, Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon in the U.S. army, bought Scott in Missouri and moved him to Illinois. In 1836, Scott and Emerson moved to Fort Snelling, in present-day Minnesota. In the Missouri Compromise of 1820, Congress had prohibited slavery in the area that included Fort Snelling. Emerson bought a slave named Harriet and Scott married her in 1836. In 1838, Emerson and the Scotts moved back to Missouri. The Scotts had two daughters, Eliza, born around 1843, and Lizzie, born around 1850. Dred Scott had sued his mater to obtain freedom, for himself and his family. Basically Dred felt like since he was in a territory where slavery was illegal and the law was you would never have to be a slave again, he shouldnt have to be a slave again. Many people in Scott's position had won their lawsuits in state trial courts. However, by the time Scott's case made it to trial, U.S. political sentiments had changed and it took 11 years for his case to reach the Supreme Court of the United States. His big problem was that he wanted to be FREE.

In 1834, Dred Scott was basically freed. The reason I say he was basically freed was because his owner took him to Illinois were slaves could never be enslaved again. According to the law if you moved to Illlinois slavery time was over. Scott owner gave him time to get married and have more than one child!!!So why cant he have his own freedom? If he wanted Scott to be a slave he should not have gave him the oppurnity to be free for all them years. He had let him go so "once free always free".He didnt harm anyone alll he want is his freedom. Them are the reasons why Dres Scott should be free.****

Brinia Lewis

**Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia in 1795. In 1834, Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon in the U.S. army, bought Scott in Missouri then moved him to Illinois. Illinois was a free state, meaning the phrase, "once free, always free." In 1836, Scott and Emerson moved to Fort Snelling, in present-day Minnesota. In the Missouri Compromise of 1820, Congress had prohibited slavery in the area that included Fort Snelling. In 1838, Emerson and the Scotts moved back to Missouri. Emerson died in 1843 and he left his possessions, including the Scotts, to his widow, Irene. They lived in St. Louis, Missouri. In 1846, Dred Scott asked Mrs. Emerson if he could work for money. If he could earn and save money, he could buy his freedom from Mrs. Emerson. According to Scott, she refused. In 1847, Emerson was able to win in Missouri Circuit court on a technicality; Scott's lawyers failed to prove to the jury that Emerson was holding Scott as a slave. Scott's lawyers successfully argued for a retrial with additional witnesses that could prove Emerson's ownership of Scott. The case went to court again in 1850. By that time Mrs. Emerson had moved to Massachusetts and left John F.A. Sanford, her brother, in charge of her financial matters, including the Scott case. The jury agreed that Scott and his family should be free because of the doctrine "once free, always free." Sanford, acting for his sister, appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court. In 1852, two of the three judges found in favor of Mrs. Emerson and John Sanford. The decision consciously reversed earlier precedent. The newly elected proslavery justice, William Scott, wrote the decision, arguing that states like Missouri must have the power to refuse to enforce the laws of other states. Thus, regardless of wherever else Scott had been with his master, slavery was legal in Missouri.

Dred Scott moved to the north. He lived in a free state, meaning that he was free when he reached the north, when he went back to the south he was still free. Dred had the right to sue because he was a citizen because he passed through a free state which gave him his freedom, so he was freed and when he becamse free he became a citizen.

As Will tipton said he was never officially dismissed. He was permitted to go to Fort Snelling by his master. This was part of the Missouri Compromise, which included a law which permitted people to be free there if they traveled legally, but as soon as he returned to the South; he was a prisoner once more. No law ever said, also, that slaves were free if they entered free territory if they weren't officially freed, even if they traveled legally. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 (renewed in 1850) states that the slaves that are on northern soil must return to southern soil. Written in the Wisconsin enabling act section 12, "settlers shall enjoy all the rights, privileges, and advantages… be subject to all the conditions and restrictions and prohibitions". Which means that even if you are in a free state, it doesn't mean that your neccisarily free. In Dred Scotts case it means that his owner Dr. Standford, left him in the north, ( a free state) but Dr. Standfor didn't free him. When Scott went went back to Missouri, he wasn't free, becuse he wasn't let go by Dr. Standford. If he went back to Missouri he should have thought that he could have been held a slave again. As Will Dula said Standfor bequeathed his property(including dred Scott.) in his wife, Mrs. Standfords possetion. (Bequeathed means to leave to someone)

My final judgement after reading the arguments, and looking at the facts, I have desided that if I were a judge I would rule in favor of Scott because he was left in the north which was a free state. When his owner Dr. Standford left Dred, he basically let him go. This is why I believe that dred Scott should be free.
- Zohra coday**

Dred Scott was actually born in 1795, not 1799.
-Emma

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License