someone want to explain the dred scott case in the simplest phrasing as possible?

Question

long night.. im reading the text book and i dont want to analize what its trying to say. help me out?

ps im not lazy, i just need some help lol

thanks

Answer 1

He was a slave taken by his owner to a free state. He refused to return to the South with his owner based on his being in a free state and arguing that it conferred freedom on him and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which found in favor of the owner.

Answer 2

Lodi has it, but maybe I can help too. Here's the gist of it.
The United States Supreme Court in 1857 ruled that people of African descent, whether or not they were slaves, could never be citizens of the United States. Basically it said that Africans were not recognized as people at all. Those who were bound in slavery were no more than livestock - - animals owned by their masters.
The case decision was written by Chief Justice Roger Taney who was a pro-slavery Southerner. This is one of the factors which inflamed Northern anti-slavery sentiment and led to the American Civil War.

How insane does that seem today. Humans with somewhat darker pigmented skin were not recognized by the courts or the law of the land as people.

Answer 3

A slave who sued for his freedom and lost.