0
If you mean Dred Scott, yes he did, while he was on Northern soil, where his master had unwisely taken him.
It is not known why he did not sue for his freedom while he had the chance. But when he came back to the South, it was more difficult. The local authorities took advantage of the confused situation and denied him his freedom - a decision ratified by the Supreme Court.
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Coach
Vivi
BlakeHe did when he was living on free soil, but for some reason he didn't exercise this right.
The debate was whether he could sue after he'd returned to a slave-state. Local judges had never addressed this question before, and it went to the Supreme Court.
It was Chief Justice Taney's reaction that raised the temperature of the whole slave debate.
He declared that the Constitution protected a man's property, and slaves were property - full stop.
He also commented that a black man was not the sort of person who ought to be suing a white man at all. This infuriated the fast-growing Abolitionist lobby.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why did the US Supreme Court deny Dred Scott his freedom?
The Dred Scott case of 1857 maintained the southern thinking that, as a slave, Dred Scott was no more than property. He was not entitled to citizenship, nor the right to sue.
Who did dred scott sue?
Dred Scott sued his owner Peter Blow for his freedom. He had basis for the suit because of his extended stay in states where slavery was prohibited.
On what grounds did Dred Scott sue for his freedom in court?
missouri, and the supreme court
Why should people remember Dred Scott?
Dred Scott was a slave who tried to sue for his freedom in the 1800s. The court ruled against him, deciding that slaves were property, not people. Dred Scott should be remembered as a man who believed in independence and freedom before the rest of the country caught up.
A major implication of the Dred Scott decision was that?
The Dred Scott decision held that black people were not citizens and did not have standing to sue in federal court. It also held that blacks were only 3/5 of a white person.
