answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

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.

User Avatar

Wiki User

10y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

Anonymous

Lvl 1
3y ago

n

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: How did the Dred Scott decision regulate the spread of slavery?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Continue Learning about Movies & Television

What was the judges decision in the Dred Scott Case?

it made slavery and the western territory


What was the consequences of the Dred Scott decision for the enslaved people?

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.


What was the significance of the courts determination that Dred Scott was not a citizen for Dred Scott himself and for other persons of African descent in the U.S.?

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.


Why was the Dred-Scott court case a disaster for abolitionist?

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.


What effect did Dred Scott court case have on Dred Scott's freedom and on The Missouri Compromise?

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.

Related questions

What supreme court decision overturned efforts to limit the spread of slavery?

dred scott


The Dred Scott decision interpreted the constitution as allowing?

It allowed slavery and found Scott to be property.


The supreme court ruling in Dred Scott v Stanford 1857 helped to increase sectional conflict because the decision?

denied congress the power to regulate slavery in the territories


What concerned Lincoln about the read Scott decision?

slavery


Who was the subject of a supreme court decision on slavery?

Dred Scott


What opened all territories to slavery?

dred scott decision


What was the judges decision in the Dred Scott Case?

it made slavery and the western territory


How did the nation respond to the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?

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.


Which group of people supported the Dred Scott Decision?

The South was delighted with this decision - it declared that slavery was legal in every state of the Union.


Why were most southerner's pleases with the dred Scott decision?

Because it said slavery was protected by the Constitution.


Did the Dred Scott decision make the slavery issue better or worse?

boats annd hoes


What were the reactions to the dred Scott decision?

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.)