SECTIONAL CRISIS 1850 1861
DRED SCOTT
|
Question
[CLICK ON ANY CHOICE TO KNOW THE RIGHT ANSWER]
|
|
|
It meant that slave owners could keep their slaves even if they moved to free states.
|
|
|
It meant that slaves could sue for citizenship and win.
|
|
|
It meant that free people could be sold into slaver in free states.
|
|
|
None of the above
|
Detailed explanation-1: -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-2: -The Dred Scott Decision outraged abolitionists, who saw the Supreme Court’s ruling as a way to stop debate about slavery in the territories. The divide between North and South over slavery grew and culminated in the secession of southern states from the Union and the creation of the Confederate States of America.
Detailed explanation-3: -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-4: -Northerners, especially Republicans, were outraged by the decision. They sided with the two lone dissenters, believing that Scott was a free man due to his time in free territory, as Congress was allowed to prohibit slavery in the territories.