Southerners believed that Dred Scott was not free because they viewed him as property, not as a person entitled to rights. The prevailing legal framework at the time considered enslaved individuals to be the property of their owners, and the Supreme Court's 1857 ruling in the Dred Scott case reinforced this notion by declaring that enslaved people could not sue for their freedom. Additionally, many Southerners held the belief that the extension of slavery into new territories was essential for their economic interests, leading them to support the idea that Scott should remain enslaved.
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.
The Supreme Court declared Scott was a free man
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.
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.
I believe it was called, Dred Scott.
Dred Scott believed he should be free because he had lived in free states and territories where slavery was illegal, which he argued should have conferred freedom upon him. He sued for his freedom based on the legal principle of once free, always free, but ultimately lost the case in a landmark Supreme Court decision.
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.
He was a slave in a free state
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.
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, 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.
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.
Dred Scott is famous for the start of the civil war between the union army of the north and the south.