In the Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sandford, what was Scott's claim?

Question

options:

that the Kansas-Nebraska Act must be repealed

that his time in a free territory meant that he was a free man

that he had been brutally treated by his owner and should be freed

that he had been illegally captured in the North because of the Fugitive Slave Act

Question

Maleah Chen

History

2 January, 07:03

In the Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sandford, what was Scott's claim?

Question

options:

that the Kansas-Nebraska Act must be repealed

that his time in a free territory meant that he was a free man

that he had been brutally treated by his owner and should be freed

that he had been illegally captured in the North because of the Fugitive Slave Act

+2

Answers (2)

Know the Answer?

Gringo · Answer 1

That his time in free territory made him a free man

Dylan Middleton · Answer 2

Option B, that his time in a free territory meant that he was a free man, is the right answer.

Explanation:

In the United States, Dred Scott was a slave who appealed for his freedom from slavery. He is best known for the very lawsuit "Dred Scott v. Sandford" that he registered in the court of the United States to get freedom from slavery. He claimed that he and his wife had spent four years in a territory where slavery was illegal and therefore, they are eligible for their freedom.

However, the ruling, in this case, was given by the Supreme Court of the United States on 6th March 1857. The Supreme Court asserted that Dred Scott who was residing in the territory of the free state of the United States was not obliged to his freedom and that the African - Americans were not and could nevermore be subject of the U. S. Citizenship.