That he had been taken on to free soil, where his freedom would have been granted automatically if he had applied for it at that time.
Dred Scott is famous for the start of the civil war between the union army of the north and the south.
Dred Scott claimed freedom on the basis of saying that he was illegally a slave when his owner moved him over to the northern-free states. However, in order to sue somebody, it is required that you be a U.S. citizen. Dred Scott was viewed as property, and the case was never acknowledged.
The Dred Scott contributed to sectionalism by allowing slave owners to bring slaves into free states and still be considered property of the owner. This ruling allowed slavery to be expanded into the new territories and free states.
because he onced lived in areas of the north where slavery was prohibited
The dred Scott decision held that all African Americans, whether free or slave, were not citizens of the US, had no power to sue in court, and that the congress had no constitutional authority to end slavery.
Dred Scot's master had taken him to a free territory.
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
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.
Dred Scott argued that he should be freed from slavery because his owner had taken him to live in free territories, which he believed should make him a free man. He claimed that his residency in these free territories should have granted him his freedom according to the principles of "once free, always free."
Dred Scott, a slave, sued for his freedom after being taken by his owner to free territories. The landmark Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) ruled that even though Scott was in a free territory, he was not entitled to freedom because he was property under the law.
Dred Scott is famous for the start of the civil war between the union army of the north and the south.
The Dred Scott case had to address three main questions: whether Dred Scott, as a slave, was entitled to sue in federal court; whether his time spent in a free state or territory made him free; and whether the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which prohibited slavery in certain territories, was constitutional.
the owner didnt take him there his owner died and he fled. his name is Dred Scott and he lost the dred Scott case.