Want this question answered?
She believed that slaves should be set free, also non-violent actions.
Because, people, in general, have too much free time. Or, more likely, people believe that there are positions and truths which should not be readily ceded to others.
Some people believe that everything is already destined to occur and that free will is an illusion (determinism and predeterminism); other people believe free will exists and that people have control over their own fates. Among these two dichotomous position lies a spectrum, varying from hard determinism to philosophical libertarianism. One of the main proponents in the argument that both determinism and free will are valid postulates is the concept of Philosophical Dualism. The answer to whether I (or you) believe in one or another depends on who is asked the question. There is no absolute or finite answer to such a subjective and ambiguous question.
The Freemasons believe in a god who is known as the Great Architect. They do not believe that Jesus is God and their god is different from any other religion. This is one of the most secretive religions of all times.
Both human will and human freedom are concepts permeating human belief systems. Neither exist in the non conceptual reality of nature. However, Humans are free to believe in free will to believe in either idea.
Dred Scott.
Dred Scott based his claim for freedom on the fact that his master had taken him to free states and territories.
First of all learn how to talk. Then go ask Your History teacher this question. you should have said "What did the Dred Scott decision do?" It was a slave who thought he was free and they went to court over it and the court said he was a slave and that he was not free.
because he onced lived in areas of the north where slavery was prohibited
Dred Scot's master had taken him to a free territory.
Dred Scot's master had taken him to a free territory.
His master unwisely took him into free soil, and then back into slave country. If Dred wanted his freedom, he should have applied for it on free soil, where it would have been granted automatically.
I believe it was called, Dred Scott.
He was a slave in a free state
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.
because they said "slaves are property" and said that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional and they wanted to keep slaves out of western territory and any slaves found free would be back in captivity and even though Dred Scott was free for 19 years they still made him to be a slave because of the Dred Scott vs. Sanford .That is how Dred Scott was discriminated.
Because he had once lived on free soil, where his freedom would have been granted automatically, if he had applied for it then. He didn't see why he couldn't apply for it retrospectively.