Answered

Enslaved man, Dred Scott, brought suit against his owner and argued his master held citizenship in both slave and free states. Why did Scott argue he should be entitled to his freedom?

A. Scott's master had granted him freedom when they were in a free territory.
B. Scott had stepped foot into free territory and therefore was no longer a slave.
C. Scott's master and he had lived in free territory for many years.
D. Scott's master had passed away while they were in a free territory.



Answer :

GinnyAnswer

Final answer:

Dred Scott sued for freedom after living in free territories, but the Supreme Court rejected his claim due to his lack of citizenship and ruled that slaves were considered property.


Explanation:

Dred Scott, a slave, argued for his freedom based on the time he spent in free territories where slavery was banned, specifically in Illinois and Wisconsin. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that he could not sue for his freedom as blacks, whether free or slave, were not considered U.S. citizens. This decision emphasized that slaves were seen as property, not individuals with rights.


Learn more about Dred Scott Decision here:

https://brainly.com/question/42862203


Other Questions