Abolitionists were upset with the Dred Scott decision because it effectively denied the legal status of enslaved people as U.S. citizens and ruled that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. This decision not only undermined their efforts to end slavery but also reinforced the institution of slavery in the United States. It fueled their determination to fight against the spread of slavery and highlighted the deepening divisions in the nation regarding the issue. Ultimately, the ruling galvanized the abolitionist movement and heightened tensions leading up to the Civil War.
they said that he was a piece of property and could not sue for his freedom
The Abolitionists, because it could allow the creation of new slave states.
Abolitionists were most upset by the Fugitive Slave Act, a key provision of the Compromise of 1850, which mandated that escaped slaves be returned to their owners even if they were found in free states. This law not only intensified the moral outrage against slavery but also required ordinary citizens to assist in the capture of fugitives, effectively implicating them in the institution of slavery. Additionally, the expansion of slavery into new territories, allowed under the compromise, further fueled abolitionist anger and activism.
John Brown's violent actions against slavery, particularly his raid on Harpers Ferry, likely upset pro-slavery advocates who viewed him as a radical and a terrorist threatening their way of life. Additionally, moderate abolitionists might have been concerned that his tactics would provoke backlash against the anti-slavery movement and lead to increased violence. Finally, some members of the general public may have disapproved of his willingness to resort to violence, believing in a more peaceful approach to social change.
the compromise of 1850
It upset them because the ruling basically made stated that Congress could not outlaw slavery anywhere because slaves where property of the slave owner, and therefore protected by the 5th amendment.
It appeared to mean that slavery was legal in all states of the Union. It also upset the Abolitionists by declaring that a black man could not be a citizen of the United States, and could not sue a white man.
The North was upset because the decision declared the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional. - Novanet
The North was upset because the decision declared the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional. - Novanet
The North was upset because the decision declared the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional. - Novanet
The Abolitionists - because the court's verdict meant that slavery could not be banned anywhere in the Union.
The North was upset because the decision declared the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional. - Novanet
they said that he was a piece of property and could not sue for his freedom
The North was upset because the decision declared the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional. - Novanet
The Dred Scott decision declared that African Americans could not be U.S. citizens and overturned the Missouri Compromise, inflaming tensions over slavery expansion. Many in the North were upset because they believed the decision further entrenched slavery and undermined the rights of African Americans.
It appeared to mean that slavery was legal in every state of the Union, so that all the compromises had been invalid. (novanet) the north was upset because the decision declared the missouri compromise to be unconstitutional
The Dred Scott decision demonstrated that there was no single nation any more. The South certainly wasn't upset by any decision that declared slavery to be legal, and that the new territories could not vote to join the USA as free-soil states. It was North that was upset at the suggestion that every state in the Union could, in theory, practise slavery. They were also displeased by the way the judgment was worded - that the Chief Justice reckoned a black man had no business taking a white man to court.