USA HISTORY

SECTIONAL CRISIS 1850 1861

DRED SCOTT

Question [CLICK ON ANY CHOICE TO KNOW THE RIGHT ANSWER]
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 that outlawed slavery in some future states was unconstitutional because Congress does not have the authority to deny property rights of law abiding citizens. Thus, Scott was always a slave in areas that were free.
A
Dred Scott
B
John Sanford
C
Both sides
D
Neither side
Explanation: 

Detailed explanation-1: -Chief Justice Roger Taney and six other Justices ruled that Missouri Compromise was illegal because Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories, and slave masters were guaranteed property rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Detailed explanation-2: -This legislation admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a non-slave state at the same time, so as not to upset the balance between slave and free states in the nation. It also outlawed slavery above the 36º 30’ latitude line in the remainder of the Louisiana Territory.

Detailed explanation-3: -The Missouri Compromise was accepted because it: 1) maintained congressional balance in the Senate, 2) allowed for certain new territories to be slave states, and 3) allowed certain new territories to be non-slavery states.

Detailed explanation-4: -By a 7-2 margin, the Court ruled that Dred Scott had no right to sue in federal court, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, and that Congress had no right to exclude slavery from the territories.

There is 1 question to complete.