No. That is, you could make a case that it did both of those things, but in fact it didn't directly do either.
Dred Scott is a slave and sued his slave owner that if his in the north his freed from slavery. dred scott decision is when they said the Dred is just a slave and they are not citizen had no rights to sue their slave owners. this led to continue the civil wars against the north and the south
Because it said slavery was protected by the Constitution.
boats annd hoes
Slaves were prohibited from bringing suit because they weren't citizens.
Dred Scott rose the awareness of slavery.
Dred Scott is a slave and sued his slave owner that if his in the north his freed from slavery. dred scott decision is when they said the Dred is just a slave and they are not citizen had no rights to sue their slave owners. this led to continue the civil wars against the north and the south
Dred Scott
dred scott decision
It allowed slavery and found Scott to be property.
it made slavery and the western territory
Which statement best describes the Dred Scott v. Sanford Supreme Court decision?
dred scott
The Supreme Court eventually decided to give Dred Scott his freedom. They made that decision because they thought that it would end the huge slavery crisis. A few weeks after Dred Scott was freed, he sadly died. :(
Because it said slavery was protected by the Constitution.
boats annd hoes
The Dred Scott decision by the US Supreme Court weakened the case for those Americans that believed slavery had to be abolished. It strengthened the belief, held mostly in the South, that slavery was Constitutional. The South was elated, and Northerners who opposed slavery were shocked.
Southerners were delighted with the Dred Scott decision, but northerners were outraged.