why does the lawyer for mrs.emerson believe dres scott should remain a slave

The simple answer is that Dred Scott wanted freedom for himself and his wife, Harriet Robinson. They'd been legally married at Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery had been prohibited by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. But as they moved around from place to place, Dred and Harriet's status changed depending on where they lived.

Full Answer

What did Dred Scott Sue the Emerson family for?

Dred Scott sued the Emerson family and John Sanford for his freedom. Dred Scott believed that since his master, John Emerson, had taken him to a free state, he should be a free man. Initially, Dred Scott won his case, but it was overturned. Thus, he had to take the case back to court.

How did Scott get his freedom from Emerson?

Only after Emerson's death in 1843, after Emerson's widow hired Scott out to an army captain, did Scott seek freedom for himself and his wife. First he offered to buy his freedom from Mrs. Emerson -- then living in St. Louis -- for $300. The offer was refused. Scott then sought freedom through the courts.

What was the argument of Dred Scott’s lawyers?

Dred Scott’s lawyers reiterated their earlier argument that because he and his family had resided in the Louisiana territory, Scott was legally free and was no longer enslaved.

What was the outcome of the Scott v Emerson case?

By the time the case went to trial in 1850, Mrs. Emerson had moved to Massachusetts and left her brother, John Sanford, in charge of her financial matters, including the Scott case. The jury agreed that Scott and his family should be free because of the “once free, always free” doctrine.

What was Dred Scott's main reason for suing Mrs Emerson?

Scott sued Mrs. Emerson for “false imprisonment” and battery. Scott argued that he was being held illegally because he had become a free man as soon as he had lived in a free state. He claimed he was taken to a slave state against his will.

What did the Dred Scott decision say about slavery and slaves?

The Dred Scott decision was the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on March 6, 1857, that having lived in a free state and territory did not entitle an enslaved person, Dred Scott, to his freedom. In essence, the decision argued that, as someone's property, Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in a federal court.

What did Dred Scott's lawyers argue?

Scott's lawyers used an argument based on the fact the defendant—Sanford—and the plaintiff were from different states, shifting the focus of the case to whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction and whether or not Scott was a citizen of the United States.

Why did Dred Scott believe he should be?

Dred Scott went with his master, Dr. John Emerson, to Illinois and Wisconsin, which were free areas because of a measure called the Missouri Compromise. Because of this Dred Scott felt he should be free, and he asked the Court to grant him that right. In other words, he sued for his freedom.

Why does Chief Justice Taney believe that Dred Scott is not a citizen of the United States why is this issue important for the case?

Why is this issue important for the case? Chief Justice Taney believes that Dred Scott is not a citizen because the language used in the Constitution shows that enslaved people were not intended to be citizens.

What argument did Scott used to sue for his freedom?

In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued his master's widow for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived as a resident of a free state and territory. He won his suit in a lower court, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision.

Why did Dred Scott believe he should be freed from slavery quizlet?

Terms in this set (6) Dred Scott was an African American slave who tried to sue his owner so that he could gain his freedom. Why did Dred Scott believe he should be freed? He believed that when his previous owner took him to lands in the upper Louisiana Purchase and Illinois that he was considered free.

Why was Dred Scott important quizlet?

Dred Scott was a slave and social activist who served several masters before suing for his freedom. His case made it to the Supreme Court prior to the American Civil War.

Did Dred Scott have a good reason to believe that he would win his case what political events changed this?

What political events changed this? He did have reason to believe he would win because this was a doctrine that was recognized in common law for centuries in Europe. However, the dispute over slavery had been heating up during the time of the case and the stakes of the decision had increased substantially.

Why did Dred Scott sue?

Yet, though his face was likely featured in your history textbook, how much do you really know about his life and the dramatic Supreme Court case that made him a focus of American politics? Dred Scott, along with his wife, Harriet, legally sued for his freedom in 1846, according to History. Scott claimed that because he had traveled to states ...

How did the Dred Scott case help the Civil War?

The Dred Scott case helped stoke the fires of civil war. Adam Cuerden/Wikimedia Commons. In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, abolitionists were incensed. To many, the idea that Black Americans were anything less than full citizens with the same rights as their white neighbors was enough to enrage them.

What was the result of the Dred Scott v. Sandford case?

The 1857 result of Dred Scott v. Sandford in the Supreme Court produced a reaction so dramatic and intense that many believe it was one of the sparks that lit the fires of civil war. And, at the core of it all, was a very real man and his family fighting for their freedom. This is the messed up truth about the Dred Scott case.

Why did Scott claim his freedom?

Scott claimed that because he had traveled to states that had outlawed slavery while still a slave himself, he had legal grounds to claim his freedom. The courts and seemingly everyone else, however, sometimes had a different idea. The Scotts' case went from their local Missouri courts and, over the course of a decade, ...

When was Dred Scott v. Sandford reviewed?

Dred Scott v. Sandford was finally reviewed by the Supreme Court in 1856 , though, as the University of Houston relates, the justices did not announce their decision until the following year.

How many Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Presidents who favored slavery?

According to PBS, seven of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by presidents who favored slavery, while a further five were from slave-owning families themselves.

What was the significance of the Scott case?

The case was linked to a tenuous national agreement about slavery. After Scott's birth, but well before he and his wife formally argued for their freedom, a national settlement on the matter of slavery created more tension over an issue that had already created deep political and ethical divides.

Who did Scott buy his freedom from?

First he offered to buy his freedom from Mrs. Emerson -- then living in St. Louis -- for $300. The offer was refused. Scott then sought freedom through the courts. Scott went to trial in June of 1847, but lost on a technicality -- he couldn't prove that he and Harriet were owned by Emerson's widow.

Why did the Supreme Court rule that Scott was not a citizen?

It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

What court did Scott go to?

Scott and his lawyers then brought his case to a federal court, the United States Circuit Court in Missouri. In 1854, the Circuit Court upheld the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court. There was now only one other place to go.

Why did Scott not claim the free lands?

But Scott never made the claim while living in the free lands -- perhaps because he was unaware of his rights at the time, or perhaps because he was content with his master. After two years, the army transferred Emerson to the south: first to St Louis, then to Louisiana.

What was the Supreme Court ruling on the African American case?

Ten years later, after a decade of appeals and court reversals, his case was finally brought before the United States Supreme Court. In what is perhaps the most infamous case in its history, the court decided that all people of African ancestry -- slaves as well as those who were free -- could never become citizens of the United States ...

Where did the Emersons travel?

Instead of staying in the free territory of Wisconsin, or going to the free state of Illinois, the two travelled over a thousand miles, apparently unaccompanied, down the Mississippi River to meet their master. Only after Emerson's death in 1843, after Emerson's widow hired Scott out to an army captain, did Scott seek freedom for himself ...

Who did Scott marry?

While there, Scott met and married Harriet Robinson, a slave owned by a local justice of the peace. Ownership of Harriet was transferred to Emerson. Scott's extended stay in Illinois, a free state, gave him the legal standing to make a claim for freedom, as did his extended stay in Wisconsin, where slavery was also prohibited.

Facts of The Case

Constitutional Issues

The Arguments

• The case of Dred Scott v. Sandford was first heard by the Supreme Court on February 11–14, 1856, and reargued on December 15–18, 1856. Dred Scott’s lawyers reiterated their earlier argument that because he and his family had resided in the Louisiana territory, Scott was legally free and was no longer enslaved. Lawyers for Sanford countered that the...

See more on thoughtco.com

Majority Opinion

Dissenting Opinion

The Impact

Sources and Further Reference