English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

3 answers

Dred Scott was a runaway slave who made it to the north. The court ruled that a runaway had to be returned to his owner in the south, even from a state that did not permit slavery. This made a lot of northerners very angry, because they felt they were being forced to participate in slavery by the rule, or face prosecution. As you know, many risked it anyway, and the underground railroad helped many escaped slaves to get to Canada, which did not send them back.

2006-06-14 14:46:50 · answer #1 · answered by auntb93again 7 · 0 0

Well the Dred Scott decision said that Scott couldn't sue for his freedom back, because everywhere in the US, blacks aren't considered citizens, and they don't have the legal right to sue for anything. So even though he was "free" in the Northern states, he was still not a citizen.

So the Northerners, the free states, were wondering how the heck you could have a free person who wasn't a citizen, and hated the Southerners because as soon as a black walked into the South they had no rights at all. And the Southerners believed that the North didn't have the ability to say that blacks were free, because after all they weren't citizens.

2006-06-14 14:46:32 · answer #2 · answered by geofft 3 · 0 0

Dred Scott was a former slave who went to court because his master came back to claim him after many years of freedom. The court dismissed his case, saying he was property so he couldn't be in court. This angered the North but not the South, so it separated them further.

2006-06-14 14:44:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anne 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers