Slave Dred Scott sued for his freedom on the basis that his owner had taken him to live in a free state and then a free territory. His case was argued in front of the Supreme Court in 1857. What was the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case? A. The court ruled that Dred Scott should not be freed because he had not proven that he had been taken to a free state. B. The court ruled that Dred Scott should be freed because slavery was unconstitutional. C. The court ruled that Dred Scott was the property of his owner and that the owner's rights were protected by the Constitution, therefore Dred Scott would not be freed. D. The court ruled that Dred Scott should be freed because he had been taken to areas in which slavery was illegal.

Question

Social Studies

Laura Berger

20 February, 21:25

Slave Dred Scott sued for his freedom on the basis that his owner had taken him to live in a free state and then a free territory. His case was argued in front of the Supreme Court in 1857. What was the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case? A. The court ruled that Dred Scott should not be freed because he had not proven that he had been taken to a free state. B. The court ruled that Dred Scott should be freed because slavery was unconstitutional. C. The court ruled that Dred Scott was the property of his owner and that the owner's rights were protected by the Constitution, therefore Dred Scott would not be freed. D. The court ruled that Dred Scott should be freed because he had been taken to areas in which slavery was illegal.

+5

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Aubree Richmond · Answer 1

I believe the answer is C because the court ruled that he was not a free man because 1. He was a slave and the court believed that if you were black, then you were not a n American Citizen and 2. He was the property of his own. Sorry, I could be wrong.