Which of the following best explains the Dred Scott case and how it affected the debate about slavery?

Dred Scott was a slave owner who learned his slave was living as a free man in a Northern state. He argued that the slave should be returned to him to continue working on his plantation. He won his case which caused a revolt between citizens in the North and South.

Dred Scott was a slave who argued that because his owner brought him into a free area, he should be free. The Supreme Court ruled he was "property," and citizens could bring property wherever they chose. This decision enraged anti-slavery activists.

Dred Scott was a white abolitionist who murdered a group of pro-slavery men. He was tried in court in a Southern state and found guilty. Citizens in Northern states argued for his release, and the resulting battles between the states led to "Bleeding Kansas."

Dred Scott was a slave arrested in Boston and forced to board a ship back to his owner in Virginia. Boston citizens purchased his freedom in a Northern court, and he was allowed to remain in Boston as a free citizen. This decision enraged slave owners in the South.

I think its C

5 answers

It is b

C is so not the answer. I tried it on a test and got wrong.

DON'T PUT C AS THE ANSWER!!!!!

I do not think it is C.

So what is the answer ?

Actually, the correct answer is B.

The explanation for the Dred Scott case and its impact on the slavery debate is as follows: Dred Scott was a slave who argued that because his owner had taken him to live in a free state (Illinois) and a free territory (Wisconsin), he should be considered free. However, the Supreme Court, in its decision in 1857, ruled against Dred Scott, stating that African-Americans, whether free or enslaved, were not considered citizens under the U.S. Constitution and therefore did not have the right to sue in federal court. The Court also declared that African-Americans, even if they were free, could never be citizens of the United States and that Congress had no power to ban slavery in the territories. This decision infuriated anti-slavery activists and further entrenched the divide between the North and South in the ongoing debate about slavery.