Question

what did dred scott argue in the scott v. sandford case?
○ he was free because he had lived in free states.
○ he was free because he owned property.
○ he should not have been captured because he was a fugitive.
○ he should get his property back through due process.

Explanation:

In the Scott v. Sandford case, Dred Scott argued that he was free because he had lived in free states (specifically, he had resided in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory, which were free areas under the Missouri Compromise). The argument about property ownership, being a fugitive, or getting property back through due process was not his main argument in this case.

Answer:

A. He was free because he had lived in free states.