The Dred Scott versus Sandford ruling also called the Dred Scott Decision, help to regulate and spread the effects of slavery faster because it said that as slaves these people were not really citizens and as such had no rights to sue anyone. The law went on to say that the government had no way to enforce any rulings to stop slavery in states or areas that were created before the states became unified.
n
it made slavery and the western territory
The Dred Scott decision is known as the worst decision ever by the Supreme Court. It said that blacks could not be citizens. Slavery was a decision of the new territories.
First, the Dred Scott decision ruled that since Africans weren't citizens, they had no Constitutional rights. Second, it directly led to the Civil War and the abolition of slavery.
1.) Slaves are not citizens and can't sue. 2.) Slaves are property. 3.) Slavery should be legal everywhere. It left the decision to allow slavery or not, up to the territories This would have tipped the scales of representation in favor of the pro-slavery South.
The Dred Scott case decision in 1857 by the US Supreme Court did not actively effect the 1850 Missouri Compromise. The Compromise had been negated by the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854.What was effected was the Court's ruling that the US Congress could not pass legislation on slavery. Slavery was property and was constitutional according to the ruling of the Court. Scott never became a freeman.
dred scott
It allowed slavery and found Scott to be property.
denied congress the power to regulate slavery in the territories
slavery
Dred Scott
dred scott decision
it made slavery and the western territory
The Dred Scott decision by the US Supreme Court weakened the case for those Americans that believed slavery had to be abolished. It strengthened the belief, held mostly in the South, that slavery was Constitutional. The South was elated, and Northerners who opposed slavery were shocked.
The South was delighted with this decision - it declared that slavery was legal in every state of the Union.
Because it said slavery was protected by the Constitution.
boats annd hoes
Republicans were, of course, quite distressed, seeing this as meaning they COULD not prevent the spread of slavery. More than that, they feared the Court would soon, by the same logic, find it impossible for any STATE to bar slavery in its own midst. (At the same time, they argued that, since the court's decision had begun by saying Scott had no "standing" to bring the case, that anything they said AFTER that was not binding, because these other things were not needed to come to that basic decision.)