this is important to recognize because john f.a. sanford was the wealthy family's loyal son-in-law. john f.a. sanford was the defendant who dred scott hardly knew, hardly could have known. yet, sanford had fallen into the role as executor of an estate that dred was part of. years later, in a "the new york times" interview, mrs. emerson chaff if i was asked why the case didn't settle. mrs. emerson chaffey agreed it would have settled if not for the chateaus. they wanted it pursued. if dred scott would not give up because the freedom of his entire family was on the line, sanford did not give up even though he seemed to care very little about the lawsuit because his in-laws wanted a win. so, how did this all come to bear on the scott family? the precedent was well established. the scotts had witnesses, a lawyer, they met the elements of the case and they should have won in state court under missouri state law as 100 litigants had before them. suing for prix dom was difficult. make no mistake about it. these enslaved persons exposed themselves to risks in suing their masters. they had to

this is important to recognize because john f.a. sanford was the wealthy family's loyal son-in-law. john f.a. sanford was the defendant who dred scott hardly knew, hardly could have known. yet, sanford had fallen into the role as executor of an estate that dred was part of. years later, in a "the new york times" interview, mrs. emerson chaff if i was asked why the case didn't settle. mrs. emerson chaffey agreed it would have settled if not for the chateaus. they wanted it pursued. if dred scott would not give up because the freedom of his entire family was on the line, sanford did not give up even though he seemed to care very little about the lawsuit because his in-laws wanted a win. so, how did this all come to bear on the scott family? the precedent was well established. the scotts had witnesses, a lawyer, they met the elements of the case and they should have won in state court under missouri state law as 100 litigants had before them. suing for prix dom was difficult. make no mistake about it. these enslaved persons exposed themselves to risks in suing their masters. they had to

john f.a. sanford probably never knew he had won., sanford had gone mad and was confined to a mental institution. the st. louis chateau family sent mrs. emerson in massachusetts some money related to the litigation. most likely it was the wages that dred and harriott earned those years impounded by the sheriff. it came as an embarrassment to congress chaffee to learn that by coveture he was the owner of the nation's most famous slave. he owned the scotts because he had married john emerson's widow. dred and harriott were haste illy transferred by quitclaim deed to someone in missouri because only a missouri resident could free a slave. thus we were granted their freedom not by operation of law, but by the embarrassment of a congressman from massachusetts. though dred lived two years after the case and the family remained together, harriott and her daughters survived the civil war. lizzy married and had children of her own. aliza never did but she stayed with her mother and did laundry. it was not simply chief justice taney's writing