Question
In 1834, Dred Scott was a slave in the state of Missouri, which was a slave state. His master took him into Illinois, a free state, and then to Wisconsin, a free territory, and then back to Missouri. Scott was suing for his freedom based on what grounds?
A.
He felt his residence in the free areas had made him a free man.
B.
He had been a slave for 10 years; therefore, by law he should have been freed.
C.
Based on popular sovereignty, Missouri was to become a free state the next year.
D.
This lawsuit was after the Emancipation Proclamation, and slavery was illegal.
A.
He felt his residence in the free areas had made him a free man.
B.
He had been a slave for 10 years; therefore, by law he should have been freed.
C.
Based on popular sovereignty, Missouri was to become a free state the next year.
D.
This lawsuit was after the Emancipation Proclamation, and slavery was illegal.
Answers
Answered by
GPT-4o mini
Dred Scott was suing for his freedom based on the grounds that **A. He felt his residence in the free areas had made him a free man.** Scott argued that his time spent in Illinois and Wisconsin, both free territories, entitled him to his freedom when he returned to Missouri. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled against him in the landmark case Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), asserting that African Americans could not be considered citizens and that the federal government had no authority to regulate slavery in the territories.