What did dred scott argue in the scott v. sandford case? he was free because he had lived in free states. he was free because he was now a slaveholder. he should not have been captured because he was a fugitive. he should get his property back through due process.

The correct answer is "He was free because he had lived in free states". In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans of African descent could not sue in federal court. In this case Dred Scott defended himself by stating that he and his family had lived in territory were slavery was banned, and for that reason he considered himself as a free person.

well first we can compare on what the slave masters ate and what the slaves ate well the masters ate fancy great food like chicken rice mash potatose and stuff like that and slaves ate well food that your not suppost to eat like the weird parts of turkey and chicken and slaves master chilled beat and eat and slaves work get beat and get little of sleep there you go

  the common sense as a pamphlet written by thomas paine. it promoted the independence of the colonies from british rule. the distribution of this pamphlet was great, it reached people everywhere and it was even read aloud at places people met. it also unite the colonists before the revolutionary war.

answer is d