What effect did the dred Scott decision by the supreme court have on slavery in the supreme court have on the slavery in the territories and on the slaves themselves?

Answer 1

Dred Scott stated that because he was a slave who traveled to territories which did not permit slavery, he was freed from his owner. The Supreme Court ruled that just because he was present in territories which did not permit slavery, it did not mean that he was no longer a slave because that would violate the federal Constitution by interfering in another man's property (as a slave, he was the property of his owner). The Supreme Court stated that Dred Scott was nothing more than the property of his owner, and that he did not have any political rights, not even the right to the very trial he started.

From this preliminary ruling, an even bigger ruling was made in response to this reasoning. Because the government did not have to right to interfere in a mans property, a territory thus could not declare slavery illegal because that would violate property rights.

Because of this, the Missouri Compromise and Popular Sovereignty were thus invalid. Slavery was open to all territories. While the Missouri Compromise restricted slavery to lands south of the 39th parallel, the Dred Scott decision declared the Act unconstitutional and all territories in the United States, north and south, were open to slavery. Popular Sovereignty, a principle which stated that a territory could stage a vote where the people decided whether or not slavery would be legal, was also declared unconstitutional because the territory could not interfere with property right and make slavery illegal.

Basically, the Dred Scott Decision opened slavery to all territories and said that slaves would always be considered property of their owners and nothing more.

Answer 2

so hard