Dred Scott sued his slaveholder because he was treating him as a slave even though they had lived in a non slaveholding state
... [Scott and his slaveholder had moved from Missouri, a slave state, to Illinois, a free state, and back to Missouri.] The Supreme Court ruled (1856) that Scott's residence in a free state did not make him a free person. This decision gave further impetus to the abolitionist movement, in that it suggested that laws against slavery would be held to be invalid, and was one of the causes of the civil war.
He believed that because Emerson once took him to a free state, Illinois, Emerson should be tried and found guilty because Scott was a slave in a free state, therefore it should be illegal.
U.S. Army Surgeon Dr. John Emerson
The Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sanford did not decide if Dred Scott was a slave or not, but that slaves (and their descendants) could not be counted as US citizens and had no right to sue in court.
Dred Scott claimed freedom on the basis of saying that he was illegally a slave when his owner moved him over to the northern-free states. However, in order to sue somebody, it is required that you be a U.S. citizen. Dred Scott was viewed as property, and the case was never acknowledged.
Dred Scott lived in missouri
It defined American citizens as white. It said that a black man could not sue a white man.
dred scott
Dred Scott.
dred scott
dred scotts master was dr. john Emerson
A widow, Irene Emerson. The court case was called Scott v. Emerson.
Dr. John Emerson
John Emerson
2 dollars
U.S. Army Surgeon Dr. John Emerson
He was Dred Scott's owner and a U.S. army surgeon
Dr. John Emerson did not pay for Dred Scott; rather, he was owned by other individuals before eventually being owned by the Emerson family. Dred Scott's legal case revolved around his claim to freedom based on having lived in free territories, despite being a slave.
Dred Scott