What was the argument given by Dred Scott?

Answer 1

For Dred Scott: When a person enters a free State or territory, the free status overrides the previous condition of servitude. Since slavery was forbidden in the free States and territories by federal and State laws, Dred Scott became free when he entered Illinois and Wisconsin.

For Sandford: To deprive a person of property (in this case, Dred Scott) without due process or just compensation violated the 5th Amendment, which states that "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Dred Scott was still a slave and no master's property rights could be limited or taken away by a State or federal law.

Answer 2

Dred Scott was a slave who reckoned that he was entitled to his freedom because his master had taken him on to free soil before they both returned to slave country.

If Scott had applied for his freedom while on free soil, he would have been granted it automatically. As it was, his status was in doubt, and the local judges ruled against him. He referred the matter higher, and it ended in the Supreme Court, with the controversial 'Dred Scott Decision' that appeared to invalidate the compromises that had been so carefully negotiated between North and South, for the purpose of avoiding war.

There is no doubt that both Scott and his master had acted unwisely, and their actions helped to fuel the debate to a dangerous degree.

Answer 3

That when the Founding Fathers declared that a man's property was sacred, they would have included slaves in their definition of property.