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.
He 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.
What year was Dred Scott ruled a slave by the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sanford did not decide if Dred Scott was a slave or not, but that slaves (and their descendants) could not be counted as US citizens and had no right to sue in court.
Was a slave who sued the government for his freedom?
Dred Scott
What Former slave tried to sue for his freedom?
Dred Scott
What was dred scott case about?
Dred Scott sued his owners for freedom when they took him to the Northern states. The Supreme Court ruled that he did not have the right to sue whether he was a slave or free. That decision was overturned nine years later.
Who was dred Scott and what was the dred Scott decision?
Dred Scott is a slave and sued his slave owner that if his in the north his freed from slavery. dred scott decision is when they said the Dred is just a slave and they are not citizen had no rights to sue their slave owners. this led to continue the civil wars against the north and the south
What was dred Scott fighting for in the dred Scott case?
Dred Scott was fighting for his freedom. The Dred Scott case was a landmark Supreme Court decision that ruled African Americans were not considered citizens and therefore did not have the right to sue in federal court. The decision further fueled the tensions over the issue of slavery leading up to the Civil War.
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.
Which of the following statements are true about the US Supreme Court's decision on Dred Scott?
The best answer would be that slaves had no right to sue for freedom.
What did judge Taney rule in the Dred Scott Case?
In the Dred Scott Case, Chief Justice Taney ruled that Dred Scott, as a black person, did not have the right to sue in federal court because he was considered property, not a citizen. Taney also declared that the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in certain territories, was unconstitutional.
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.
What was the Dred Scott decisoin?
Basically it said that slaves were property and had no rights. Therefore Scott had no standing to sue.
On what grounds did Dred Scott sue for his freedom in court?
missouri, and the supreme court
