What was Scott's argument for freedom?

O Slavery was illegal in the North.

His slaveholder had granted him freedom by

taking him North

When Scott lived on free soil, he became

free.

He was restricted with the freedoms of citizenship he had believed he was given, even though he was seen as a free man in the north.

The Scott landmark hearing, was discrimination on all African decent men, regardless to education or status. Some would say all denied civil rights were enforced for the reason of living a past life in USA in slavery - where all knew their freedoms were limited, controlled in many other ways within the north.

Decisions of the courts were controversial as other African men fell into jurisdiction of denied civil rights, whilst applying to the very court seeking change. Public interest and outcome was suppressed in all court decision. The controversy was federal rules did not entitle him or any one else to make any financial claim or proposition to any federal court. Within the supreme court the hearing became landmark and a damaging injustice until 1887 with little change thereafter. Where civil rights laws were only readjusted to protect the minimal citizen rights held.

In consequence to both 19th century, then long into 20th century, little had changed until referencing progressed landmark ruling referencing to Scott's argument in 1856. New slant, rise change use within lead up and long after and far from the 100 year struggle since Scott's ruling.

This decision of the court did remain in force until the court disavowed it by upholding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, nearly 100 years after the Civil War ended.

Answer: living in a free state should make him a free man.