0
What else can I help you with?
Why did dred Scott take Emerson and Sanford to court and what did he want?
Dred Scott took Emerson and Sanford to court to sue for his freedom. He argued that his time living in free territories entitled him to be considered a free man. Scott wanted the court to rule in his favor and grant him his freedom.
Where did the Dred Scott vs Sanford case take place?
It took place in 1857, in Missouri.
What precedent was established by the decision in Dred Scott v Sanford?
The finding in the Dred Scott vs Sanford case was tha when a slave master took a slave tho the north, the slave was notautomaticaly freed and furthermore that slaves were not people, but property.
How many years was the Dred Scott case in the US court system?
The Dred Scott case took about eleven years to be resolved. The case began in Missouri in 1846.
Who was the slave who sued for his freedom in the Supreme Court was?
Dred Scott
How many times did Dred Scott go to court?
Dred Scott went to court 3 times. 1st he went to Missouri Circuit court where he was granted his freedom. Then the Missouri reversed the decision an so he took it to federal court where it was ruled that he was still a sllave. lastly he took it to U.S. supreme court where he was also ruled to be a slave
What was dred scott case about?
Dred Scott sued his owners for freedom when they took him to the Northern states. The Supreme Court ruled that he did not have the right to sue whether he was a slave or free. That decision was overturned nine years later.
Why did Dred Scott's new owners take his case to court to win his freedom rather than just freeing him themselves?
They didn't take him to court 'to win his freedom'. HE took THEM to court, to apply for his freedom on the basis that his previous owner (their deceased relative) had taken him on to free soil, where Scott would have been granted his freedom automatically, if he had applied at that time. The local courts had never dealt with a retrospective application of this kind, and that is how the case arrived at the Supreme Court.
Was the dred Scott decision proslavery?
Yep. The Dred Scott decision was all about how Dred Scott went with his slave owner up to a "free state" and stayed long enough to, technically, be free. He turned this into a court case and took it to the Supreme Court. They decided that he could never become a citizen because of his race, and could, therefore, never sue in court. The court justices thought in theory that slavery was protected by the constitution. (which it is absolutely not!) I hope this clears it up :]
What is a quick summary of the Dred Scott case?
Dred Scott was a slave. His owner took him outside the south and through states that did not allow slavery. These states had rules that any enslaved person brought into the state became free. Dred Scott sued to try to win his freedom.The Dred Scott case had a very broad and damaging outcome. The Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott, a negro, had no rights whatsoever. He was property, not a person or a citizen. He had no right to sue in federal court. Further, the court ruled that the federal government had no legal right to interfere with the institution of slavery. Slavery advocates were encouraged and began to make plans to expand slavery into all of the western territories and states. This created much of the tension that caused the Civil War.Quick FactsDred Scott was a slave who lived in the free territories of Illinois and Wisconsin before moving with his owner to the slave territory of Missouri. When his owner died he sued his owner's wife for his freedom. He claimed that since he had lived so many years on "free soil" that he deserved to have his freedom.Dred Scott and his family (except for his younger daughter, Lizzie) had lived for a significant time in "free" territory, which should have automatically guaranteed their right to emancipation under the "once free, always free" doctrine. Unfortunately, Scott didn't attempt to exercise this option until he and his family were living in Missouri, a slave-holding state.Scott attempted to purchase his family's freedom for $300, but Irene Emerson refused the offer, so Scott sued for their freedom in court, a strategy that had worked for certain other former slaves. The first case against Irene Emerson (Scott v. Emerson,(1847) was dismissed for lack of evidence; by the time the second case was tried (Scott v. Sanford, (1857), Emerson's brother, John Sanford had assumed responsibility for his sister's legal affairs (which is why his name is on the case instead of hers).The case citation is Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857)
Did dred Scott live in the north or south?
He lived in the South. But he was the slave of an army doctor who was posted to the North and took Scott with him. At that stage, Scott could have sued for his freedom, and it would have been granted automatically. But he didn't apply until he was back in slave country. That was the legal complication that got his case referred to the Supreme Court.
What years did the Dred Scott decision take place prior to the Civil War?
The Dred Scott decision or Dred Scott v. Sandford, took place in 1857. His case was based on the fact that he and his wife Harriet Scott were slaves, but had lived in states and territories where slavery was illegal, including Illinois and Minnesota (which was then part of the Wisconsin Territory). Dred Scott lost the case when The United States Supreme Court ruled seven to two, on the grounds that he, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States, and that therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules.
