The dred scott decision stated all of the following, except . a. that scott was property and that congress, based on the 5th amendment was prohibited for taking property b. that scott was to imprisoned and could face the death penalty for running away c. that congress had no power to ban slavery in territories d. scott was still a slave, despite having once lived in a free state, and therefore could not bring forth a lawsuit.

The correct answer is B. The Dred Scott Decision did not state that Scott was to imprisoned and could face the death penalty for running away.

Explanation:

In the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court ruled that African-Americans had no right to freedom or citizenship. As they were not citizens, they did not have the legal capacity to file a lawsuit in federal court. As slaves were private property, Congress did not have the power to regulate slavery in the territories and could not revoke the rights of a slave owner according to the place where he lived. This decision nullified the essence of the Missouri Compromise, which divided the territories into free and slave jurisdictions. Speaking on behalf of the majority, Chief Justice Taney ruled that because Scott simply considered himself the private property of his owners, he was subject to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits taking ownership of his owner "without due process".

i thinl it is the 1st answer