SECTIONAL CRISIS 1850 1861
DRED SCOTT
|
Question
[CLICK ON ANY CHOICE TO KNOW THE RIGHT ANSWER]
|
|
|
They could not be citizens by law.
|
|
|
They were private property and thus could not be citizens.
|
|
|
No matter where they lived, North or South, they were still slaves in the eyes of the law.
|
|
|
Slavery was now technically legal in all of American
|
Detailed explanation-1: -Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) In a decision that later was nullified by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Supreme Court held that former slaves did not have standing in federal courts because they lacked U.S. citizenship, even after they were freed.
Detailed explanation-2: -Missouri’s Dred Scott Case, 1846-1857. In its 1857 decision that stunned the nation, the United States Supreme Court upheld slavery in United States territories, denied the legality of black citizenship in America, and declared the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional.
Detailed explanation-3: -The Dred Scott decision was the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on March 6, 1857, that having lived in a free state and territory did not entitle an enslaved person, Dred Scott, to his freedom. In essence, the decision argued that, as someone’s property, Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in a federal court.
Detailed explanation-4: -In Dred Scott v. Sandford (argued 1856–decided 1857), the Supreme Court ruled that Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories.
Detailed explanation-5: -After the Supreme Court’s decision, the former master’s sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free. Dred Scott died nine months later.