Question

Which of the following best explains the Dred Scott case and how it affected the debate about slavery?

Dred Scott was a slave owner who learned his slave was living as a free man in a Northern state. He argued that the slave should be returned to him to continue working on his plantation. He won his case which caused a revolt between citizens in the North and South.
Dred Scott was a slave who argued that because his owner brought him into a free area, he should be free. The Supreme Court ruled he was "property," and citizens could bring property wherever they chose. This decision enraged

Answer 1

In the Dred Scott case, a slave tried to sue for his freedom because his owner brought him into a free state, and he believed that this made him free. The eventual ruling was that since slaves weren't citizens, they couldn't even sue at all. In fact, they ruled that all African Americans, slaves or free, weren't real citizens. This was a huge blow for the antislavery movement, because it basically stated that slaves were so inferior that they could never hope to become citizens, and made things much worse for free slaves. The ruling also included that the federal government did not have the power to ban slavery in the states, and that the states could do whatever they pleased about it. This made it much easier for slavery to continue until the ruling was overruled later on.

Answer 2

^

Answer 3

Keep up the good work @leahmarieed :)