What issue did the Dred Scott case involve?

Answer 1

slavery

Answer 2

Dred Scott was a slave who was taken into a Federal Territory by his master in the late 1840's. Because at that time the "law of the land" regarding slavery in the territories was the Missouri Compromise, which had banned slavery north of the 36°30' line, Scott sued in the Missouri Court system, claiming that when he had entered free territory, he had become free. (It is important to note the key to Scott's argument was that he had entered a free territory, not a state. Free states had positive legislation protecting the rights of slaveholders who brought their slaves into a free state temporarily, but territories had no such legislation.) Scott lost his case in front of the Missouri Supreme Court, but when his master died soon after, Scott's mistress remarried - this time to a New Yorker. Scott sued once again, and on this occasion the case went before the US Supreme Court, due to the fact that the case was now an interstate matter since his new owner was in a different state. Scott lost his appeal in front of the Supreme Court, and Justice Roger Taney put forth the opinion that the Missouri Compromise had been unconstitutional and that further, as a black, Scott had no standing in the Court and no legal rights whatsoever as a US Citizen.

Answer 3

The real underlying issue was not slavery at all.

The Supreme Court had to decide whether an individual (Dred) - a non-citizen and non-person (according to the law at the time) had the right to petition the Court for the protection of his personal liberty, or whether the Southern slave owners had the right to do whatever they wanted with their exclusive property.

The Supreme Court sided with the right to property and declared that Dred had no right to petition the Court.

Thankfully, the Thirteenth Amendment nullified the Court's decision in 1865.

Answer 4

The Dred Scott determination replaced into based on the regulation on the time. It replaced into over grew to become while slavery replaced into abolished. a various regulation would could contradict Roe V Wade. it relatively is why professional lifers attempt to get rules handed that make killing a pregnant female double homicide. on the middle of the Roe V Wade determination is the age of a attainable fetus. A fetus could be waiting to proceed to exist on that's very own. i do no longer think of as time is going on that which will substitute for a majority of the individuals. meaning, there'll continuously be a minimum of(or around) 0.5 of the inhabitants who have self belief the mum's rights trumps an incomplete (no longer totally formed) toddler. yet i'm particular you are able to say that's achieveable. i discover it no longer likely

Answer 5

Dred Scott, who was a slave back in 1847, sued the state of Illionis to gain freedom of slavery I believe.

Answer 6

Slavery.

Basically, he sued for his freedom because he was a slave taken into a free state, but the Supreme Court ruled that he wasn't a citizen so he couldn't sue (among other things that really hurt the anti-slavery cause.)

Answer 7

Whether a slave is free if he entered a free state and resided in said free state would that slave be free? Is said slave a person or considered property of the slaveowner? Does a slave have the right to petition the Supreme Court for his freedom?

Answer 8

It laid down that a slave is not a citizen but a piece of property, also it techinically allowed slavery in the western territories

Answer 9

whether or not dred locks were protected by federal law

Answer 10

slavery