Here I am, preparing for the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. An African Amercian wants to be freed from their former slave master. This is not the first case I have seen.
As I call out the Dred Scott v. Sandford case an black male walks in and explains his case. He says that while being enslaved he lived in free state for an exteneded period of time which was illegal.
After stating his facts, he was not able defend his case. The court could not find out if he was really owned by Dr. Emerson's wife and he was also not a citizen.
In this time, the country was deep in conflict with slavery. Some people hated slavery and some people loved it. Eliza Emerson then walked in and supported her claim. She did not want to give up her slaves.
After supporting her claim the defendent came in on Eliza's side which was her brother John Emerson which was a citizen on New York. He pleaded that Dred Scott was not from the state of Missouri and he was owned by himself shifting the court's decision. It was left for the jury to decide.
After the discussion the jury then decided that Eliza's story made more sense and Dred Scott and his family had to remain being slaves and cannot be freed. "Dred Scott v. Sandford case, Dred Scott has to remain being enslaved and he is not entiled to freed" I said while banging my gavel.