Will give brainliest) what was the argument in the dred scott case?

a) dred should have been aloud to run for president because he was a citizen

b) dred should have been free because he had lived in a free territory

c) dred should be aloud to return to slavery if he chose who.

d) dred should have been able to vote because he had lived in a free territory

B) dred should have been free because he had lived in a free territory

Explanation:

The Dred Scott decision was the Supreme Court's ruling on the sixth of March, 1857, that living in a free state and on territory did not entitle a slave, Dred Scott, to his freedom. the decision argued that as a slave Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in a federal court.

the three answers (for plato at least) are:

b-condemned sola fida 

d-set rules for establishing seminaries and for educating clerics in the seminaries 

f-recommended moderation in the sale of indulgences and banned the sale of false indulgences