Question

Slave Dred Scott sued for his freedom on the basis that his owner had taken him to live in a free state and then a free territory. His case was argued in front of the Supreme Court in 1857. What was the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case?
A.
The court ruled that Dred Scott should not be freed because he had not proven that he had been taken to a free state.
B.
The court ruled that Dred Scott should be freed because he had been taken to areas in which slavery was illegal.
C.
The court ruled that Dred Scott was the property of his owner and that the owner's rights were protected by the Constitution, therefore Dred Scott would not be freed.
D.
The court ruled that Dred Scott should be freed because slavery was unconstitutional.

Answer 1

C.

The Court ruled (in an opinion by Chief Justice Taney) that Black people — free or enslaved — were not U.S. citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court, and it also held that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories (striking down the Missouri Compromise). Thus Dred Scott remained enslaved.