The case of Dred Scott, a black slave whose owners transported him from Missouri, a slave-holding state, to Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was prohibited, led to the decision.
Later, when his owners took him back to Missouri, Scott filed a court petition for his freedom, arguing that since they had transported him into "free" U.S. territory, he was now immediately free and no longer a slave.
Thus, option C is correct.
<h3>What resulted from the Dred Scott ruling in the end?</h3>
Scott and his family were kept in slavery as a result of the federal court's decision in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, which was heard on May 15, 1854.
Scott appealed his case to the US Supreme Court in December 1854. The case went to trial on February 11, 1856.
For more information about Dred Scott's decision refer to the link:
brainly.com/question/23987166
#SPJ1
Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes.
<span>Chief Powhatan
ignore,
answer too short</span>
Answer:
To protect the northern way of life. What was one effect of the Emancipation Proclamation? It added the abolition of slavery in the South to the Union's war goals.
Explanation:
Texas was a province of Mexican foreign settlers were invited to help develop the land and its resources by about 1830 American settlers outnumbered Mexican citizens they begin to take over Regional Administration and to insist on special us-based privileges such as owning slaves appointing their own Ramen and using US legal principles for land ownership none of these things were acceptable to Mexican government who have legal responsibility for Texas tensions grew up between American settlers and the American population who asked for military protection in 1836 American settlers illegally occupied the Mission Station El Alami and claimed it as part of the USA of course the Mexican Government attacked any self-respecting they would do the same what would happen today if the Polynesian majority in Hawaii proclaimed a separate country run on their ancient monarchists principles