Yes. Congress could NOT tell territories or states not to have slaves.
One of the findings of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision was that slaves were considered property, not citizens.
Dred Scott
dred scott decision
It allowed slavery and found Scott to be property.
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
it made slavery and the western territory
The US Supreme Court was an important decision. Here are some facts about this: A. The Court confirmed that Dred Scott was not a citizen; B. The Court confirmed that slavery was not illegal; C. The Court confirmed that freed slaves were not citizens nor could they be; and D. It was a blow to the anti slavery abolitionist movement.
Which statement best describes the Dred Scott v. Sanford Supreme Court decision?
dred scott
The South supported the Dred Scott decision, as it reinforced the rights of slave owners to take their slaves into territories where slavery was prohibited. They viewed it as a victory for protecting their property rights and upholding the institution of slavery.
The Missouri Compromise was illegal; therefore, Dred Scott was free.The Missouri Compromise was legal; therefore, Dred Scott wasn't free.The Missouri Compromise was illegal; therefore, Dred Scott wasn't free.The Missouri Compromise was legal; therefore, Dred Scott was free.
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. :(