Question

in the text, you read this about the dred scott case: dred scott had been enslaved for many years in missouri. later, he moved with his owner, who was an army surgeon, to illinois and then to the wisconsin territory, where slavery was not allowed. after they returned to missouri, scotts owner died. the owner’s wife took ownership of scott, and eventually those rights transferred to her brother, john sandford. antislavery lawyers helped scott to file a lawsuit, a legal case brought to settle a dispute between people or groups. scott’s lawyers argued that, because scott had lived in a free territory, he had become a free man. use the passage to answer the question. according to dred scott’s lawsuit, how had his rights been violated? (1 point) ∘ he had been forced to move against his will to different places. ∘ he was not allowed to talk to a lawyer to prepare for his case ∘ he was kept as a slave even though he lived in free territory ∘ his ownership had been transferred without his agreement.

Explanation:

To solve this, we analyze each option against the passage. The passage states Scott lived in a free territory (Wisconsin Territory where slavery was not allowed) but was still held as a slave.

• Option 1: The passage says he moved with his owner, not forced against his will. Eliminate.
• Option 2: The passage says antislavery lawyers helped him file a lawsuit, so he was allowed to talk to a lawyer. Eliminate.
• Option 3: Matches the argument that he should be free as he lived in a free territory but was still a slave.
• Option 4: The passage focuses on his status as a slave after living in free territory, not on the transfer of ownership without agreement. Eliminate.

Answer:

C. He was kept as a slave even though he lived in free territory