After the Court ruled that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. Opponents of slavery pinned their hopes on the Republican Party. For the reason if the Republican Party became strong enough, they could still keep slavery in check.
The Northern abolitionists (those who opposed slavery and wanted it outlawed) were outraged at the Supreme Court's decision that slavery was protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, and also by their suggestion that African-Americans had no right of citizenship or access to the courts.
Northerners objected to the Supreme Court decision for a number of reasons:
Case Citation:
Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393 (1857)
Dred Scott was the personal servant of Dr. John Emerson in 1846 when Emerson died. He then sued for his freedom, because he had lived in territories where slavery was illegal. The county court accepted that, but the Missouri supreme court rejected him as free. He took his case on appeal to the Supreme Court.
The chief justice, Roger Taney,( a former slave owner) overruled it, stating that free or slave, Scott wasn't a citizen, so he couldn't stand before the court. He also mentioned that slaves were a piece of property, comparing them with a mule, and that the fifth amendment protected property, he couldn't deprive the owners of their slaves.
So, the south, with that, were given hope to make another step. They questioned the law of 1807 outlawing the slave trade. This caused the Republicans to grow stronger. Those in the North who had been neutral joined the Republican party. The Republican party grew more defiant, and the wedge grew deeper.
the answer is because Dred Scott was a black man, he was not a U.S. citizen. Taney cited various laws limiting or denying black citizenship in many states, particularly in the North. If a person was not a citizen, he could not be protected by the Constitution, and thus had no right to sue in federal court.
Dred Scott was the personal servant of Dr. John Emerson in 1846 when Emerson died. He then sued for his freedom, because he had lived in territories where slavery was illegal. The county court accepted that, but the Missouri supreme court rejected him as free. He took his case on appeal to the Supreme Court.
The chief justice, Roger Taney,( a former slave owner) overruled it, stating that free or slave, Scott wasn't a citizen, so he couldn't stand before the court. He also mentioned that slaves were a piece of property, comparing them with a mule, and that the fifth amendment protected property, he couldn't deprive the owners of their slaves.
So, the south, with that, were given hope to make another step. They questioned the law of 1807 outlawing the slave trade. This caused the Republicans to grow stronger. Those in the North who had been neutral joined the Republican party. The Republican party grew more defiant, and the wedge grew deeper
Tension rose between north and south because the south would lose some algriculture. Meaning the south would have to find people to replace slaves to pick their main source which was cotton.
The Dred Scott decision was so controversial in the north becauseafrican americans would not have freedom or citizenship.
Dred scott being deemed as property angered northers abolitionists, and the union
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
If you're doing the crossword, the Dred Scott descision.
It is likely that the Dred Scott decision had little direct effect on the Civil War. However, it is may be that the South felt more justified to pursue the war because of the decision.
Slaves were prohibited from bringing suit because they weren't citizens.
Southerners were delighted with the Dred Scott decision, but northerners were outraged.
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
The Dred Scott decision declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and ruled that slaves were property. The decision did not necessarily alarm most people in the North.
Southerners were delighted with the Dred Scott decision, but northerners were outraged.
If you're doing the crossword, the Dred Scott descision.
That the Supreme Court decision was both unnecessary and invalid.
Southerners benefited the most from the Dred Scott Decision.
It is likely that the Dred Scott decision had little direct effect on the Civil War. However, it is may be that the South felt more justified to pursue the war because of the decision.
Stonewell Jackson thought Dred Scott Decision was a supid idea
Slaves were prohibited from bringing suit because they weren't citizens.
the dred scott decision stated that slaves are peoplealso and should'nt be property :D yurwelcomee
Southerners were delighted with the Dred Scott decision, but northerners were outraged.
The Dred Scott Decision helped lead to the Civil War because it caused fighting between the North and South. The North was angry because people in the north had decided not to allow slavery in their states, and the Dred Scott decision allowed slaves to be brought into their states. The Dred Scott decision basically said that if a slave was brought to a free state they were still a slave because they were property. so even a free state wasn't really free. Most southerners were happy with the decision because it allowed them to take slaves with them to free states and territories and reinforced the idea that slaves had no rights as U.S. citizens. Dred Scott's case caused more trouble between the North and South.