The Dred Scott decision
Without reversing a decision, th law could never grow and evolve. For instance, we would still be saddled with the Dred Scott Decision that requires the return of runaway slaves.
Because the court had sensationally ruled that slavery was legal in every state of the Union. They had decided to interpret the Constitution in the way that the Founding Fathers would have done. When they declared that a man's property was sacred, they would have included slaves within their definition of property. The Court had also declared that a black man could not be an American citizen, and had no business taking a white man to court. All of this was music to the ears of the Southern planters.
it depends on if you mean why couldn't they go to school when they were slaves or if when they were freed. they probably wouldn't be aloud to have an education or be smart enough to wonder what the difference between them and their masters are and why they are to be working and not the masters being slaves.
The questions were whether to allow slavery (this decision was postponed for 20 years) and whether to count slaves as residents when determining Congressional apportionment and taxation (there was the 3/5 Compromise, which may seem ludicrous today, because the slaves could not vote).
Salves could not vote for many years after slavery was abolished.
Slaves could only travel with their masters.
Because, they were property to their slave masters, and the slave masters could do anything that they wanted to the slaves in order for the slaves to keep their lives.
No, slaves could NOT be mean to their slaves because they would get in HUGE trouble. They would probably be put to death if they where.[: Audralynne :]
slaves slep where ever they could weather in the masters bacement or in the barn on some hay
Slaves could be adopted by the families to which they were sold or they could marry into their masters family.
The slaves brought to America were chattel slaves. The had no rights, could be traded as property, and were expected to perform labors for their masters. The South had field slaves who worked the fields and the house slaves.
The decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case declared that the Constitution protected property - and that slaves were property. Simple as that. This could be taken to mean that no state could be officially free soil - the issue in the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, which first brought Lincoln to nationwide notice.
No, because back then the slaves were really nothing. The masters could just go out and buy a new one. No one would really care in the white race, but in the black race they would want that but they couldn't.
Arm freed slaves in a revolt, so that they could kill their masters.
Noble slaves could be beaten as a form of punishment or to assert dominance by the slave owner or overseer. It could also be a way to maintain discipline and control over the slaves, regardless of their social status.
Yes, there was a law passed that slaves could marry with the permission of his master, and they had brothers and sisters. They certainly had friends, especially the city slaves, who had access to their masters and could "put in a good word" for someone trying to gain a favor.
James Henley Thornwell, a 19th-century theologian and academic, believed that when slaves obeyed their masters, they were fulfilling a Biblical obligation to submit to authority. Thornwell saw this obedience as a way for slaves to maintain order and stability within the institution of slavery. He argued that by obeying their masters, slaves could potentially be granted spiritual salvation through their humility and adherence to Christian principles.