0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What did the Dred Scott Decision did Not do?
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.
What did Dred Scott base his claim of freedom on?
Dred Scot's master had taken him to a free territory.
How did the Dred Scott decision change the Missouri Compromise?
In the Dred Scott decision a slave was taken up north to a "free state," according to the Missouri Compromise, and then brought back down to a slave state. Dred Scott felt that by entering a free state should be free from slavery, but on the ruling the Dred Scott decision ruled that slaves are considered property and can be taken anywhere, therefore going against the Missouri Compromise. The Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause for the reasons stated above, and overturned the legislation.
Which of these was not a result of the Dred Scott U.S. supreme court decision?
The Supreme Court declared Scott was a free man
How did Dred Scott CASE affect the civil war?
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.
Who said that he should be free because he lived in a free territory?
Dred Scott.
What did Dred Scott based his claim for freedom on?
Dred Scott based his claim for freedom on the fact that his master had taken him to free states and territories.
What did the Dred Scott Decision did Not do?
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.
Why did dred Scott agrue that he should be free?
because he onced lived in areas of the north where slavery was prohibited
What did Dred Scott base his claim of freedom on?
Dred Scot's master had taken him to a free territory.
What did dred Scott base his claim on freedom on?
Dred Scot's master had taken him to a free territory.
What are facts about dred Scott?
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.
What was the issue in the dred Scott case?
He was a slave in a free state
What describes the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case?
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.
How was dred Scott discriminated?
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.
What did Dred Scott claim John Sanford did to him and his family?
First of all, John Sandford was not the original defendant in the case. The original defendant was Irene Emerson, Dred Scott's owner. John Sandford was Irene Emerson's brother, and acted on her behalf. As such, Dred Scott never claimed that John Sandford did anything to his family. Now as far as Irene Emerson goes, Dred Scott claimed that she was harming him and his family by not allowing them to be free, in violation of the Missouri Compromise. Scott's claim was that since he had lived in free states (namely, Illinois and Wisconsin Territory) where the Missouri Compromise outlawed slavery, that should have made him free.
How did the Dred Scott decision change the Missouri Compromise?
In the Dred Scott decision a slave was taken up north to a "free state," according to the Missouri Compromise, and then brought back down to a slave state. Dred Scott felt that by entering a free state should be free from slavery, but on the ruling the Dred Scott decision ruled that slaves are considered property and can be taken anywhere, therefore going against the Missouri Compromise. The Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause for the reasons stated above, and overturned the legislation.
