No. The Dred Scott decision basically said all the states of the USA were slave states and a slave in a "free" state was still a slave. The Dred Scott decision helped to lead to the Civil War.
Do you mean slave-free soil? (In other words free soil?)
the first free slave
The state supports slavery. It means it was legal to have slaves if you were a slave back in those times
California is huge and the South wanted California to be part of the Confederacy.
Because Senate was already 50% free states, 50% slave states, (11free/11slave) and adding Missouri as either a slave or free state would offset that balance and give more power to one side than to the other until Maine decided to want to be added as a free state, then Missouri came in as a slave state and therefore they wanted to keep the number even so the higher one wouldn't take over the other.
Do you mean "if a slave FOUGHT"...? Regardless, the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution freed any and all slaves.
It means there is no slavery in that state.
The Illinois state motto is related to the issues surrounding the power of an individual state versus the power of the Union. Illinois entered the Union as a free state, but Mississippi, just before, had come into the Union as a slave state. Alabama was to follow Illinois as a slave state. The Civil War was still a polarizing reality and Illinois' motto was symbolic of the issues that had been confronted during the brutal conflict.
that when it was gold thing the had cars and trian and gold the were free and the where not slaves
Since you use the term "slave state" I assume you mean at the start of the civil war. They all were states by 1861. The US went from East coast to West coast.
The verdict by the Supreme Court appeared to mean that all property, including slave property, was sacred, and that no state could declare itself to be free soil.
In the Dred Scott decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that not only slaves, but no Black person could sue in any US court because they were not citizens of the United States. It said the US had no right to enforce anti-slavery laws in the territories and that a slave, as his masterâ??s â??propertyâ?? could not become free just by going to or living in a free state.