Which of the following best describes the basis of dred scott’s legal case?
a) the missouri compromise stated that when an enslaved worker moved to a free state or territory, that person became free.
b) the fugitive slave act stated that when an enslaved person escaped to a free state or territory, that person became free.
c) the fugitive slave act stated that when a fugitive was captured in the north, that person did not have the right to a trial.
d) the missouri compromise stated that when a free african american entered a slave state, that person became enslaved.

A) The Missouri Compromise stated that when an enslaved worker moved to a free state or territory, that person became free.  

Explanation:

On the issue of Dred Scott about social liberties in America, the Supreme Court deciding was that neither one of the free blacks or slaves could be American natives. That slaves were property and if the proprietors moved to another state, the slave was still property.

What's more, that the Missouri bargain was illegal in light of the fact that Congress had no capacity to choose where slavery was permitted. The interest of Dred Scott was that he ought to be free since his proprietor had lived in an state that promoted freedom, and after that he moved to a state that bolstered slavery.

judaism, christianity and islam, are all abrahamic religions and therefore have in common the hebrew idea of a single god which is the source of all morality. the idea of the covenant is only related to judaism, while dharma is a concept of indian religions and the four noble truths are basic principles of buddhism.

i do not believe this was true indefiantly the native americans would have lsot aganist america one they didndt have the resources and allies that america had and 2   indians werent as advanced at the time as they were not 3 americans had the expreince because some of the soliders from other wars fought in that war and were attecked etc