Answered

IDNLearn.com is the perfect place to get answers, share knowledge, and learn new things. Join our community to receive prompt, thorough responses from knowledgeable experts.

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.

Sagot :

GinnyAnsweridn

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


We appreciate your presence here. Keep sharing knowledge and helping others find the answers they need. This community is the perfect place to learn together. Find precise solutions at IDNLearn.com. Thank you for trusting us with your queries, and we hope to see you again.