Dred Scott had been enslaved for many years in Missouri. Later, he moved with his owner, who was an army surgeon, to Illinois and then to the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was not allowed. After they returned to Missouri, Scott’s owner died. The owner's wife took ownership of Scott, and eventually those rights transferred to her brother, John Sandford. Antislavery lawyers helped Scott to file a lawsuit, a legal case brought to settle a dispute between people or groups. Scott’s lawyers argued that, because Scott had lived in a free territory, he had become a free man.
According to Dred Scott's lawsuit, how had his rights been violated?
A.He had been forced to move against his will to different places.
B.He was not allowed to talk to a lawyer to prepare for his case.
C.He was kept as a slave even though he lived in free territory. <--
D.His ownership had been transferred without his agreement
Yes, C.
thank you ms. sue ^^ :3
You're welcome.
I have that same question to. thanks
does anyone have answers to the quiz
Finally, my sister gets a question right!
C. He was kept as a slave even though he lived in free territory.
According to Dred Scott's lawsuit, his rights had been violated because he had lived in the Wisconsin Territory where slavery was not allowed, yet he was still kept as a slave upon returning to Missouri. Despite having resided in a free territory, Scott argued that he should be considered a free man.