No, the 14th Amendment supersedes the Dred Scott decision.
His case.
Look in your textbooks
supreme court of Missouri
Scott was a slave and could not bring suit
Dred Scott "Key"
dred scotts master was dr. john Emerson
i have no clue
Couldn't have had many... seeing as it he was a slave
Army surgeon Dr. John Emerson owned Scott. He died before the Dred Scott case was over. His widow appealed the case after his death which ended up in the Supreme Court which decided the Scott should not be freed.
eating food and picking up blows and getting laid in the corner
Dred Scott Was not Freed Because of the severe Racism and discrimination against slaves. Most slave owners did their best to make slaves miserable. this was not in scotts case though. He was also not freed because the chief justice that oversaw scotts hearing was Proslavery which completley put out scotts chances of being freed. Taney Decreed that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional, Scott was to stay a slave, Scott was not a U.S. citizen, and he could not sue BECAUSE he wasn't a U.S. citizen.
yes it did
His case was unsound to begin with. He would have gained his freedom automatically, if he had applied for it while living on free soil. But he didn't apply for it until he was back in slave country. That was why the case reached the Supreme Court.
The origins of the Dred Scott case are due to the I.C.U.P organization
dred scott...a+
dred scott attempted to leave the state he lived in which was a slave state and moved to a free slave so he can be "free" but slave is property and cannot be free ,