The Supreme Court Case Of Dred Scott V. Missouri By Irene Emerson

Today the trial, Scott V. Missouri, which was Dred Scott, a slave owned by Irene Emerson, suing for his freedom, had taken place. The trial had started out with a witness for prosecution, who stated that due to Dred Scott’s status as a slave, that he didn’t have any rights within the constitution. He went on to claim that the constitution only covered people and therefore, Dred Scott was only considered property and had no rights. In addition, the witness made the argument that due to Missouri law, Dred Scott was still considered a slave since he still resides within Missouri. During their argument, the Supreme Court questioned the witness about what the definition of a person was in the constitution and whose job it was to debate the Constitution.

The witness goes on to argue that due to the fact that Dred Scott was part of a free state, that he has the right to be considered free. In response, the Supreme Court questioned if Dred Scott was still in a free state, which the witness answered with a negative. Then the court inquired if property could sue its’ owner, which again was replied to with a negative response. In conclusion, the Supreme Court and the defence witness debated the difference between a slave suing and a horse suing their owners. Once the defence witness took a seat, the next witness for prosecution made their argument. Their argument was that slaves are born as slaves and not as people, which excludes them from the Constitution. The rest of the witness’s argument want the same as the first witness for prosecution, which was basically stating that a slave isn’t included in the rights of the Constitution. The witness also argued the definitions of ‘men’ and ‘citizen’ in the

He also goes on to argue that due to him being taken to a free state and having a child with a free women, who he had married, that he should be allowed freedom. The Supreme Court goes on to ask why he hadn’t sued for freedom earlier, instead of waiting eight years, which he responded to that he was forced and scared. He states that he was forced to come back and had had his child and wife’s lives threatened, while he stated that he also believed that he wouldn’t be forced to be a slave anymore. After he was done explaining his argument and point of view, the next witness for prosecution stood up and made their argument. The witness made the same argument of him not being a citizen, but being property. This lead to the Supreme Court questioning him about his role in Dred Scott’s continued slavery because he’s an Illinois officer, which would mean that he would be committing an illegal act. The witness goes on to argue that blacks abuse their rights, their freedom, and their privileges by stealing and lieing, along with says that freed slaves would juste starve to death by themselves without the support of their owners. Finally, he ends his argument and allows the next witness to stand