Which of the following best explains the Dred Scott case and how it affected the debate about slavery? Dred Scott was a slave ow
ner who learned his slave was living as a free man in a Northern state. He argued that the slave should be returned to him to continue working on his plantation. He won his case which caused a revolt between citizens in the North and South. Dred Scott was a slave who argued that because his owner brought him into a free area, he should be free. The Supreme Court ruled he was "property," and citizens could bring property wherever they chose. This decision enraged anti-slavery activists. Dred Scott was a white abolitionist who murdered a group of pro-slavery men. He was tried in court in a Southern state and found guilty. Citizens in Northern states argued for his release, and the resulting battles between the states led to "Bleeding Kansas." Dred Scott was a slave arrested in Boston and forced to board a ship back to his owner in Virginia. Boston citizens purchased his freedom in a Northern court, and he was allowed to remain in Boston as a free citizen. This decision enraged slave owners in the South.
I believe postulates are given or assumed true statements without a proof. And a theorem can be proven. You do this in geometry if I remember correctly.
