Dred Scott And Ryland Case

451 Words2 Pages
The justices hearing the case were Hamilton, Gamble, William Scott and John Ryland. Prior to the hearing Alexander Field resubmitted the briefs of the 1850 trial. Mrs. Emerson’s attorneys never validated the ordinance of 1787 or the 1820 Missouri Compromise. Norris did question the legal principals of “once free always free”. Dred Scott’s trial was no longer just about becoming free but now was about the controversy about slavery. On December 24th 1851 court was adjourned until March 15th 1852. Dred Scott did not deny that the case had been heard before; he did however state the decisions were never based on Missouri law. In Dred Scott’s conclusion he stated, “slavery was the will of God and times now are not what they were when former decisions on the subject were made”. Basically Scott knew racial and sectional prejudices played a role in the decision. Justice Hamilton Gamble agreed with Dred Scott that times have changed but disagreed that any principles had changed. Dred Scott was ruled a slave. The next day Mrs. Emerson’s attorneys went to St. Louis Circuit Court to file bonds signed by…show more content…
Unfortunately the Blow family felt that they could no longer financially support Dred through another trial. Alexander Field agreed to represent Dred’s lawyer at no cost, he suggested that the lawsuit should be heard in the Federal courts because Dred Scott and Irene Emerson resided in different states. During this time John Stanford owned the Scotts he was Irene Emerson’s brother. Alexander Fields main reason in supporting Dred Scott was to have the Supreme Court answer the questions of if residing in a free state or territory meant that the slave could be free permanently and if black people have the right to be citizens. Alexander Fields felt that being of African descent did not take away the citizenship or the right to
Open Document