Final answer:
Dred Scott, born into slavery, aimed to secure his freedom based on his residence in territories where slavery was prohibited. His case, Dred Scott v. Sandford, reached the Supreme Court and resulted in a significant ruling which stated that Black people could not become U.S. citizens, and hence Scott had no legal standing to sue for his freedom. The decision had profound impacts, inflaming sectional strife over slavery and its expansion.
Step-by-step explanation:
Primarily, Dred Scott sought to achieve his own freedom. Born into slavery in Virginia in 1795, Scott had lived in regions where slavery was banned due to the 1787 Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise. After returning to Missouri, a slave state, he attempted to buy his own freedom, but when denied, Scott took legal actions. He argued that, as he had resided in areas where the practice of slavery was prohibited, he should rightfully be a free man.
Scott's fight eventually reached the Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857. His case challenged the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise and brought into question whether Congress had the authority to decide the presence of slavery in the territories. In a controversial decision, the Supreme Court declared that Scott, and other Black people regardless of their free or enslaved status, could not become U.S. citizens. Thus, there was no legal standing for Scott to sue for his freedom.
The Dred Scott decision led to profound sectional strife, particularly inflaming the tension about the expansion of slavery into the Western territories. It had a significant impact on the political landscape of the time, contributing to the already escalating tensions between the North and the South that eventually culminated in the Civil War.
Learn more about Dred Scott