anil other)» nil) In; .s|ii';i Iters on llie occasion. Jlr*. TIOTT, Mi-. il'liW and H. S. JO.\f> of Ohio, hint* ;i!so acrc|>leil iai Million* to It«- i»reseitt. Alt persons urc tin ileil to ulteutE. iilnilttuure free.
A handbill announces a public meeting for individuals interested in discussing the Supreme Court's decision in the Dred Scott case in 1857.
usual step of filing a lawsuit against the widow. The suit claimed that he should be given his freedom because he had spent long periods of time with Dr. Emerson in areas of the country where slavery was banned. Scott knew that slaves had won their freedom in similar cases before. The courts had ruled that masters who took their slaves to live in free territory for a certain period of time must set them free. Scott just had to prove in court that he had lived in free territory and that the Emersons treated him as a slave.
After several delays, a Missouri circuit court judge ruled in Scott's favor on January 12, 1850. But the Emerson family appealed the ruling to the state supreme court. In 1852, that court reversed the earlier decision and found in favor of the Emersons. Shortly afterward, Mrs. Emerson sold Scott and his family to her brother, John F. A. Sanford. San-ford lived in New York but often traveled to St. Louis on business. Scott brought a new lawsuit against Sanford. Since the suit now involved people from two different states, Scott was entitled to take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Was this article helpful?