In the Scott v. Sandford case, Sandford argued that A. an enslaved person in a free state should be granted freedom. B. a person's property can't be taken away without due process. C. enslaved workers should not be considered property. D. enslaved workers should have the right to a trial by jury.

Question

Yandel Welch

History

30 September, 09:49

In the Scott v. Sandford case, Sandford argued that A. an enslaved person in a free state should be granted freedom. B. a person's property can't be taken away without due process. C. enslaved workers should not be considered property. D. enslaved workers should have the right to a trial by jury.

+5

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Carley Goodman · Answer 1

In the Scott v. Sandford case, Sandford argued that "B. a person’s property can’t be taken away without due process" The case set a precedent for slaves not being citizens, even when they were in free states.