Dr. John Emerson
They were unhappy about the death of Dred Scott and John Brown.
Nat Turner, Dred Scott, and John Brown
Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia between 1795 and 1800. In 1846 he sued his owner for his freedom. The lawsuit was dismissed. In 1853, he sued again, this time in federal court. The defendant was John Sanford, the executor of John Emerson's estate (Emerson was Scott's owner). The Supreme Court found in favor of Sanford by a vote of 7-2.
John Brown was an abolitionist who led a raid on the federal armory at Harpers Ferry in 1859 in an attempt to incite a slave uprising. Dred Scott was an enslaved African American who sued for his freedom in the landmark Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which ruled that African Americans could not be considered citizens and that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories. James Buchanan was the 15th President of the United States (1857-1861), whose administration is often criticized for its failure to address the escalating tensions leading to the Civil War. Together, their actions and legacies are closely tied to the contentious issues surrounding slavery and its expansion in the United States.
dred scott
dred scott
dred scotts master was dr. john Emerson
Dred Scott.
Dr. John Emerson
John Emerson
2 dollars
He was Dred Scott's owner and a U.S. army surgeon
He stood for the Dred Scott Decision (for slaves).
U.S. Army Surgeon Dr. John Emerson
No, the Chief Justice who presided over the Dred Scott case was Roger B. Taney. Dred Scott was the slave who sued for his freedom based on his residence in free territories.
First of all, John Sandford was not the original defendant in the case. The original defendant was Irene Emerson, Dred Scott's owner. John Sandford was Irene Emerson's brother, and acted on her behalf. As such, Dred Scott never claimed that John Sandford did anything to his family. Now as far as Irene Emerson goes, Dred Scott claimed that she was harming him and his family by not allowing them to be free, in violation of the Missouri Compromise. Scott's claim was that since he had lived in free states (namely, Illinois and Wisconsin Territory) where the Missouri Compromise outlawed slavery, that should have made him free.