A slave who applied for his freedom on the grounds that he had once lived on free soil. But he had moved back to slave-country with his master, and local judges referred his case to the Supreme Court in 1857.
The Court decided to interpret the Constitution as the Founding Fathers would originally have meant it. A man's property was sacred. Slaves were property. Therefore slavery was legal in every state of the Union. This delighted the South, but mortally offended the Northern Abolitionists, and deepened the split between the two sections.
First of all learn how to talk. Then go ask Your History teacher this question. you should have said "What did the Dred Scott decision do?" It was a slave who thought he was free and they went to court over it and the court said he was a slave and that he was not free.
Dred Scot's master had taken him to a free territory.
Because he had once lived on free soil, where his freedom would have been granted automatically, if he had applied for it then. He didn't see why he couldn't apply for it retrospectively.
In the Dred Scott decision a slave was taken up north to a "free state," according to the Missouri Compromise, and then brought back down to a slave state. Dred Scott felt that by entering a free state should be free from slavery, but on the ruling the Dred Scott decision ruled that slaves are considered property and can be taken anywhere, therefore going against the Missouri Compromise. The Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause for the reasons stated above, and overturned the legislation.
The Supreme Court declared Scott was a free man
Dred Scott.
Dred Scott based his claim for freedom on the fact that his master had taken him to free states and territories.
First of all learn how to talk. Then go ask Your History teacher this question. you should have said "What did the Dred Scott decision do?" It was a slave who thought he was free and they went to court over it and the court said he was a slave and that he was not free.
because he onced lived in areas of the north where slavery was prohibited
His master unwisely took him into free soil, and then back into slave country. If Dred wanted his freedom, he should have applied for it on free soil, where it would have been granted automatically.
Dred Scot's master had taken him to a free territory.
Dred Scot's master had taken him to a free territory.
I believe it was called, Dred Scott.
because they said "slaves are property" and said that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional and they wanted to keep slaves out of western territory and any slaves found free would be back in captivity and even though Dred Scott was free for 19 years they still made him to be a slave because of the Dred Scott vs. Sanford .That is how Dred Scott was discriminated.
The Missouri Compromise was illegal; therefore, Dred Scott was free.The Missouri Compromise was legal; therefore, Dred Scott wasn't free.The Missouri Compromise was illegal; therefore, Dred Scott wasn't free.The Missouri Compromise was legal; therefore, Dred Scott was free.
He was a slave in a free state
Because he had once lived on free soil, where his freedom would have been granted automatically, if he had applied for it then. He didn't see why he couldn't apply for it retrospectively.