Many courts upheld the common law doctrine, "once free, always free" that automatically granted emancipation to any slave who had lived in territory where slavery was prohibited, under the theory that once a person was free he (or she) couldn't be returned to slavery.
Dred Scott lived with Dr. Emerson at a military post in Rock Island, Illinois, in 1834. He also lived in the federal territory of Fort Snelling (now part of Minnesota), which prohibited slavery per the Missouri Compromise of 1820, as well the unincorporated federal Wisconsin Territories, which prohibited slavery per the Northwest Ordinance.
Dred Scot's master had taken him to a free territory.
The Supreme Court declared Scott was a free man
No, Dred Scott's original name was Sam. He took the name Dred after his deceased brother.
Dred Scott rose the awareness of slavery.
First of all learn how to talk. Then go ask Your History teacher this question. you should have said "What did the Dred Scott decision do?" It was a slave who thought he was free and they went to court over it and the court said he was a slave and that he was not free.
Dred Scott based his claim for freedom on the fact that his master had taken him to free states and territories.
Dred Scot's master had taken him to a free territory.
Dred Scot's master had taken him to a free territory.
Dred Scott based his claim for freedom on the fact that his master had taken him to free states and territories.
Dred Scott based his claim for freedom on the fact that he had lived in free territories and states where slavery was illegal, which he believed should entitle him to freedom. He argued that his time in these locations had made him a free man under the law.
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.
That he had once lived on free soil, where his freedom would have been granted automatically, if he had applied for it then.
Because the Louisiana Territory wasn't divided into free or slave states yet.
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.
because they said "slaves are property" and said that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional and they wanted to keep slaves out of western territory and any slaves found free would be back in captivity and even though Dred Scott was free for 19 years they still made him to be a slave because of the Dred Scott vs. Sanford .That is how Dred Scott was discriminated.
He was a slave in a free state