Which of the following best explains the dred scott case and how it affected the debate about slavery?

You didn't list the following which makes this difficult but maybe i can still in the dred scott case, a slave tried to sue for his freedom because his owner brought him into a free state, and he believed that this made him free. the eventual ruling was that since slaves weren't citizens, they couldn't even sue at all. in fact, they ruled that all african americans, slaves or free, weren't real citizens. this was a huge blow for the antislavery movement, because it basically stated that slaves were so inferior that they could never hope to become citizens, and made things much worse for free slaves. the ruling also included that the federal government did not have the power to ban slavery in the states, and that the states could do whatever they about it. this made it much easier for slavery to continue until the ruling was overruled later on. hope i !