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

2006-12-12 06:54:11 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities History

4 answers

In short it was a major cause of the Civil War. The decision ruled that Dred Scott was not a free man, but property, thus a major blow to the emancipation movement. That, along with the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin, influenced both sides toward conflict.

2006-12-12 07:04:18 · answer #1 · answered by Wego The Dog 5 · 0 1

Dred Scott was a 62-year-old slave who sued for his freedom after the death of his owner on the ground that he had lived in a territory where slavery was forbidden in the northern part of the Louisiana Purchase, from which slavery was excluded under the terms of the Missouri Compromise. After filing suit for freedom in 1847 going through two state trials, the first denying and the second granting freedom, ten years later in a sweeping decision that set the United States on course for Civil War, the Supreme Court denied Scott his freedom. The court ruled that Dred Scott was not a citizen who had a right to sue in the Federal courts, and that Congress had no constitutional power to pass the Missouri Compromise. The 1857 Dred Scott decision, decided 6-3, held that a slave did not become free when taken into a free state; Congress could not bar slavery from a territory, and blacks could not be citizens. This decision, seen as unjust by many Republicans including Abraham Lincoln, was also seen as proof that the Slave Power had seized control of the Supreme Court. The decision, written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, barred slaves and their descendants from citizenship. The decision enraged abolitionists and encouraged slave owners, helping to push the country towards civil war.[55]

2016-05-23 15:20:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom and went to the Supreme Court to do it.The significance of the Dred Scott decision was that the Supreme Court ruled that slaves had no claim to freedom; they were property and not citizens; they could not bring suit in federal court; and because slaves were private property, the federal government could not revoke a white slave owner's right to own a slave based on where he lived. Now ain't that a b***h.

2006-12-12 07:05:18 · answer #3 · answered by Casey D 2 · 0 0

is this for a paper?

2006-12-12 07:02:42 · answer #4 · answered by kimberly 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers