Can someone please help me, it's due tomorrow and I'm super confused, no links or you will be reported, if you could do the whole page that would be great or if you could do only the top or bottom that would be awesome too! Thanks for any help!​ Heres the article too

Dred Scott was born enslaved in Virginia in 1799. In 1833, he was purchased by Dr. John Emerson, an army surgeon, living in Missouri. At the time, the U. S. was divided into free states (where slavery was outlawed) and slave states (where slavery was allowed). The Missouri Compromise of 1820 made Missouri a slave state. But it also outlawed slavery in any territory north of it.
In 1833, Dr. Emerson was assigned to a fort in Illinois, and later, a fort in the Wisconsin Territory. He took Dred Scott with him. They lived in these areas for years. Even though slavery was outlawed
The map shows the division of free states and slave states.
in both places, Emerson never freed Scott. The Missouri Compromise said all territory above the red line, Eventually, Scott was sent back to Missouri to live except for Missouri, would outlaw slavery. with Emerson’s wife, Eliza Sanford*. After the doctor
died in 1843, Scott tried to buy his freedom. Sanford refused. With the support of his church, abolitionists, and friends, Scott sued to get it. His case ended up going all the way to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Having lived in free territory, was Dred Scott now a free man?
DECISION
No. Scott was enslaved. Enslaved and free Black people are not citizens and do not have a right to sue.
The Arguments
Scott sued using two Missouri laws. One said any person held in wrongful enslavement could sue for their freedom. The other stated any person taken to a free territory was automatically free and could not be re-enslaved. Sanford argued that the Missouri laws applied only to someone moving to free areas by choice. Dr. Emerson was ordered by the army to move to his posts. Sanford also said that military authority was greater than the states. And since they lived on military bases, Emerson did not have to follow state or territory laws.
The Decision
In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled that Dred Scott was not free. Chief Justice Roger Taney stated that all people of African descent, free or enslaved, were not U. S. citizens. They did not have rights like the power to vote or sue in court, so Scott’s case was invalid. But Taney did not stop there. He added that, because enslaved people were property, the Fifth Amendment protected the rights of enslavers. The Fifth Amendment says the government can’t take someone’s property without going through the courts or paying for it. Laws that banned slavery, like the Missouri Compromise, were unconstitutional. No level of government, Taney said, state or federal, could outlaw slavery.
So What?
This case raised critical questions regarding the future of slavery in the United States. Southern enslavers were overjoyed by the decision. Dred Scott lost the case, but he did become a free man in 1857 when his former owner’s family purchased his freedom. Sadly, Scott died nine months later from tuberculosis.