No. The decision outraged abolitionists, but abolitionists were only a very, very small percentage of the northern (and southern) population. Most people could not possibly have cared less about the fate of a single slave, or of any number of slaves. Do you get all worked up and want to go to war when the Court decides a case in a way you feel is unjust to one of the parties? Neither did people back then.
Which statement best describes the Dred Scott v. Sanford Supreme Court decision?
Dred Scott v. Sandford,* 60 US 393 (1857)*Sandford is misspelled in the court documents; the respondent's real last name was Sanford.
The Supreme Court ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857 worsened sectional conflict by declaring that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not citizens and could not sue in the federal courts. This decision further entrenched divisions between the North and South over the issue of slavery and fed into the growing tensions that eventually led to the Civil War.
That Scott had no right to argue in court
Dred Scott v. Sanford
The ruling in the Dred Scott case allowed slave owners to take their slaves with them into the Western territories of the United States.
Dred Scott v. Sanford
Dred Scott v. Sanford
The Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sanford did not decide if Dred Scott was a slave or not, but that slaves (and their descendants) could not be counted as US citizens and had no right to sue in court.
He was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision.
People of all states could decide if they wanted slavery withing their borders. A+Ls: The supreme court declared scott was a free man
The Supreme Court met in Washington, D.C. when it decided the Dred Scott case. It has met in Washington for every case since February 1801.