Dred Scott based his claim for freedom on the fact that his master had taken him to free states and territories.
Dred Scot's master had taken him to a free territory.
That he had once lived on free soil, where his freedom would have been granted automatically, if he had applied for it then.
Dred Scott based his claim for freedom on the fact that he had lived in free territories and states where slavery was prohibited. He argued that these experiences should entitle him to freedom under the law.
Dred Scott based his claim for freedom on the fact that he had lived in free territories and states where slavery was illegal, which he believed should entitle him to freedom. He argued that his time in these locations had made him a free man under the law.
Dred Scot's master had taken him to a free territory.
Dred Scott based his claim for freedom on the fact that his master had taken him to free states and territories.
In the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, the majority opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, concluded that Scott's claim to freedom was invalid. The Court ruled that Scott's residence in free states (Illinois and Wisconsin) did not grant him freedom, as he was still considered property under the law. The decision emphasized that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. This ruling effectively denied Scott's claim and reinforced the institution of slavery.
He tried to claim his freedom on the basis that he had lived for some years on free soil. If he had applied for his freedom at that time, it would have been granted automatically. He could then have travelled freely in slave country on the basis of 'Once free, always free'. But you could not claim your freedom retrospectively.
That was Dred Scott. He should have claimed his freedom while he was on free soil. But he was brought back into slave country, and tried to claim his freedom when his status was subject to debate. This caused immense trouble - and arguably started the Civil War.
Scott base was made in 1957
Nothing very flattering - from either side. Scott had had his opportinity to claim freedom when he was in the Northern states, but he didn't do it. He then tried to claim it later, on a retrospective basis, and the local judges had not dealt with this kind of case before. It was referred to the Supreme Court, which declared that a black man was not the sort of persion who should be suing a white man.
His own freedom - on the basis that he had once lived on free soil. Local judges had never been faced with a retrospective claim of this sort, and that is why it reached the Supreme Court.