In which state was Dred Scott originally serving Dr. Emerson as a slave?

A. Illinois

B.Missouri

C. Iowa

Which two locations was Dred Scott taken to where slavery was banned?

A.Rock Island, Illinois & Fort Snelling, Minnesota

B. Missouri & Iowa

How does the Missouri Compromise / Compromise of 1820 impact this case?

A.The Missouri compromise bans slavery in territories north of the 36' 30" line - where Dred Scott was taken as a slave

B. Missouri compromise bans slavery in territories south of 36' 30"

C.Missouri compromise bans slavery in the entire United States

D. It doesn't impact this case

Document:

The Dred Scott Case

The case of Dred Scott, which has just been argued at length before the Supreme Court at Washington, involves principles of great political as well as legal importance.

"Dr. Emerson, of the U.S. Army, took with him from Missouri a slave named Dred Scott, as a body servant, to a military post at Rock Island, in the State of Illinois. After remaining there for two years, he removed to Fort Snelling*, which post is north of the line of 3630'. At this last post, a slave woman, brought there by Major Tallafero, and owned by him, was married to Dred Scott and they had two children, one of whom was born at this post, and another after the parties had returned to Missouri. Neither of these slaves [Dred Scott or his wife] were ever set free by their owners. But, under the Constitution of Illinois, Slavery is prohibited, and Dred Scott could have asserted his right to freedom in that state....The second posting in Fort Snelling was a territory in which slavery was prohibited by the Missouri Act of 1820. .

Scott claimed that having been voluntarily carried by his owner into a free state, and having been their servant, he was upon his voluntary return with his master, to Missouri, a free man there, in virtue of his temporary residence in a free territory. The same claim was made on behalf of his wife. The Missouri court decided against Dred Scott to the claim, on the ground that temporary residence in a Free State did not make them free in the state of Missouri, unless their owners had signified by some act and intention to free them from slavery by taking them into a free territory - which did not appear to be a fact in this case.

Scott's claim to freedom rests upon two grounds - first that he was taken voluntarily by his master into a state whose Constitution prohibited slavery [Rock Island, Illinois]; and resided there for two years; second, that he was afterwards taken into a territory from which, by act of Congress, slavery had been expressly prohibited [Fort Snelling]...The question which this involves is substantially whether any state has the right to abolish slavery - or whether slave property is so recognized and protected by the Constitution of the United States that it can not be outlawed by states laws..." *Note: Fort Snelling is located in present day Minnesota