Question

what did this mean for dred scott?
check any of the boxes that apply.
scott was not a citizen of the united states.
scott was the property of the federal government.
scott had no right to sue for his freedom in court.
scott was considered the property of the enslaving family.

Explanation:

The Dred Scott case (Dred Scott v. Sandford) had several key rulings:

1. Scott was not a citizen of the US (so he couldn't sue in federal court).
2. He had no right to sue for freedom in court because, as an enslaved person, he was considered property.
3. The federal government couldn't regulate slavery in territories (though the option here says "Scott was the property of the federal government" which is not accurate; the correct idea was that enslaved people were property of their owners, and the federal gov't couldn't restrict slavery in territories, but among the given options, the applicable ones are:

• Scott was not a citizen of the United States.
• Scott had no right to sue for his freedom in court.
• Scott was considered the property of the enslaving family (or his owner, which aligns with this option).

The option "Scott was the property of the federal government" is incorrect. So the correct boxes to check are:

• Scott was not a citizen of the United States.
• Scott had no right to sue for his freedom in court.
• Scott was considered the property of the enslaving family.

Answer:

• Scott was not a citizen of the United States.
• Scott had no right to sue for his freedom in court.
• Scott was considered the property of the enslaving family.