Because the High Court claimed that slavery could not be abolished in any state, as the Constitution gave it protection.
no
Dred Scot was a slave who was owned by a military doctor. The doctor moved from a slave state to a free state and Scot argued that because he was moved to a free state he was free. The doctor argued that Scot was property and no matter where he was living he was still owned by the person who bought him. The Supreme Court agreed that slaves were property.
The Dred Scot v. Sandford, (1857) arguments concluded on February 18, 1857, and the US Supreme Court announced its decision March 6, 1857.Case Citation:Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393 (1857)
Andrew Jackson Nat Turner Dred Scott
Dred Scott "Key"
Dred Scot's master had taken him to a free territory.
Dred Scot's master had taken him to a free territory.
In the Dred Scot case, the Supreme Court ruled that Scot maintained his slave status, even though he had lived in a non-slave state for a number of years.
slaves that escape into free states will be returned to their owner.
Technically they were, (usually) the northern states of the USA (north of the Ohio river). Yet, the Dred Scot decision by the USA Supreme Court really meant the entire USA was a slave nation prior to the Civil War. Dred Scot was a slave taken to a "free" state, and he argued for his freedom, but, the Supreme Court ruled that no matter where he was taken, Dred Scot was still a slave.
Dred Scot decision in 1855 by the Supreme Court.
they were happy to be slaves..they did not want to be free
Dred Scot is the best known example. He lost his suit.
So that you will not be uncomfortable with your choice
No but the supreme court made it invalid with the Dred Scot decision
The Dred Scot decision in 1857 stated that slaves were property and had no rights to sue in court or civil rights .
no