she had been taken to fort snelling in wisconsin territory, and she had been sold or transferred to dr. emerson, who enslaved dred scott, think about that for a second, she was sold effectively in a free territory, so if slavery is not legal, under american law in the territory of wisconsin, how is it that harriet scott could be sold there? not just taken there, but sold. right? their daughter eliza was born on a steamer, up the mississippi river, above the 36/30 line. okay? their other daughter lizzy was born in missouri, upon their return. so dred scott v john sanford is not just about dred scott. it's about harriet and dred and eliza and lizzy, it's about a family who in various ways have different claims to freedom, right? i mean eliza is born in a free territory, and lizzy is born upon return to parents who have been effectively under law presumably possibly freed in their residence in a free territory. so first and foremost, i just want it make this clear, this is, the dred scott case is a family freedom suit. and like queen vhepburn, and many of the others that came forward in w