Answered

Discover how IDNLearn.com can help you learn and grow with its extensive Q&A platform. Join our community to access reliable and comprehensive responses to your questions from experienced professionals.

What did Dred Scott argue in the Scott v. Sandford case?

A. He was free because he had lived in free states.
B. He was free because he owned property.
C. He should not have been captured because he was a fugitive.
D. He should get his property back through due process.

Sagot :

GinnyAnsweridn

Final answer:

Dred Scott argued for freedom based on living in a free territory, but the Supreme Court ruled against him, denying his claim.


Explanation:

Dred Scott argued in the Scott v. Sandford case that residing in a free territory should entitle him to freedom from slavery. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that blacks could not be citizens, living in free territory did not grant freedom, and Congress couldn't ban slavery in the territories.


Learn more about Dred Scott v. Sandford case here:

https://brainly.com/question/41672761


Thank you for being part of this discussion. Keep exploring, asking questions, and sharing your insights with the community. Together, we can find the best solutions. IDNLearn.com has the solutions you’re looking for. Thanks for visiting, and see you next time for more reliable information.