The justifications of slavery during the eighteenth century were little to none until close to the end. Slavery was not a subject that was questioned whether it was ethical to keep the slave trade going. By 1750, still no one seriously discussed or questioned the existence of slavery. By 1888, the institution of slavery no longer existed in the transatlantic economy. Prior to the eighteenth century however, there were justifications to slavery. Chattel slavery did exist however prior to the eighteenth century. Chattel slavery is the ownership of one human being by another (existed in the West). Plato and Aristotle both provided arguments for slavery based on the assertion that persons in bondage were intended by nature to be slaves. Christian writers accommodated themselves similarly to the institution. They contended that the most harmful form of slavery was that of the enslavement of the soul to sin rather than the enslavement of physical body. They also argued that genuine freedom was recognized from the relationship one has with God and that if problems arise that relate to the injustices of inequality would be solved in the Hereafter. Christina Scholastic thinkers in the Middle Ages had portrayed slavery as a part of the natural and necessary hierarchy of the world and universe.
The most famous case before the US Supreme Court for the 1856-57 Term was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford, (1857), the landmark ruling in which a slave, Dred Scott, attempted to sue for his and his family's freedom from the man who claimed ownership over them. Scott was only one of several hundred slaves who sued for freedom under a Missouri law that permitted "any person held in slavery to petition the general court" for his or her freedom. Many cases arose from the person having lived in a state territory where slavery was outlawed, which resulted in emancipation of that person under the state or territory's laws. Common law practice in this era followed the dictum "once free, always free," meaning once a former slave had gained his or her freedom, he or she could not (or was not supposed to) be subjugated to forced indenture in the future.
Dred Scott had been enslaved to a man named Peter Blow, who moved his family and six slaves from Alabama to Missouri in 1830, where he opened a boarding house, the Jefferson Hotel. Sometime after 1830, but before Blow's death in June of 1832 (the Missouri Historical Society found no record of the sale), he sold Scott to John Emerson, a US Army medical doctor stationed in St. Louis, Missouri. Emerson was a known complainer who was not well tolerated by the commanding officers, and endured frequent transfers among various military posts. Scott moved with Emerson.
On November 19, 1833, the two relocated to Fort Armstrong, in Rock Island, Illinois, a "free state" where slavery had been outlawed since the land was part of the federal government's Wisconsin Territories. The Wisconsin Territories were regulated by the Northwest Ordinance, passed by Congress in 1787, which abolished slavery and required any states split from the territory to abide by this term as a condition of statehood. Dred Scott's presence in Illinois was supposed to guarantee automatically his permanent status as a freeman, even if he relocated to a slave-holding state, under the common law doctrine of the time, "once free, always free." Scott continued in the service of Dr. Emerson; however, it is not known if this was Scott's choice, or simply because he lacked awareness of his options. The two remained at Fort Armstrong for nearly three years
In 1836, Dred Scott accompanied Dr. Emerson to Fort Snelling, in what was then known as the "Upper Louisiana Territory." In 1820, the United States passed the Missouri Compromise, legislation that attempted to balance the conflicting interests of the North and South by allowing slavery to continue in the Southern states, but prohibiting its expansion into the Western and Northwestern Territories. The dividing line was along the 36th parallel (36º30'), which passed through Missouri. As a condition of the "compromise," the entire state of Missouri was permitted to legalize slavery. Fort Snelling was North of the 36th parallel, but, although technically within the state of Missouri, was (and still is) considered an "unorganized territory" on designated free soil that prohibited slavery.
While at Fort Snelling, Dr. Emerson purchased a female slave, Harriet, from a Major Taliaferro. Emerson "permitted" Dred Scott and Harriet to marry in late 1836 or 1837. In October 1837, Emerson was given a brief assignment in St. Louis. Because the weather had already turned cold, parts of the upper Mississippi river were frozen, preventing travel by steamboat. Emerson made the trip alone by canoe, leaving Dred and Harriet in the employ of someone else until he could send for them. Almost immediately, the Army transferred Emerson from St. Louis to Fort Jessup, in Louisianna. While in Louisiana, the doctor met Eliza Irene Sanford (known as Irene), whom he married in February 1838. In April of that year, Emerson sent for Dred and Harriet, who voluntarily traveled hundreds of miles to join the Emersons in a slave state. The four returned to Fort Snelling in October 1838. Enroute, Harriet gave birth to a daughter, Eliza, while on the Steamship Gipsey, on the Mississippi River, north of the 36th parallel and the Missouri state line. The assignment at Fort Snelling lasted until 1840.
In May of 1840, the Army sent Emerson to Florida on a medical mission to care for soldiers fighting in the Seminole War. Concerned for his wife's welfare, Emerson sent Irene to live on her father's plantation, called California, in north St. Louis County and turned guardianship of Dred and Harriet over to him. Alexander Sanford owned four slaves and had no need for Dred's and Harriets' services, and hired them out to locals in Emerson's absence.
John Emerson was honorably discharged from the military in 1842, and returned to St. Louis to start a private medical practice. He was unable to establish a successful business in the city, so he relocated permanently to Davenport, Iowa. On December 29, 1843, Dr. Emerson died of complications from tertiary syphilis, which was untreatable in the era before penicillin. It is unknown whether Dred and Harriet lived with the Emerson family in Iowa or remained behind in St. Louis. Dr. Emerson's Iowa estate (the documentation for which is missing or destroyed) apparently listed an unspecified number of slaves in its inventory, but the St. Louis estate did not.
Irene returned to Missouri, where she and a baby daughter took up residence on her father's plantation. Dred Scott was hired out to Captain Henry Bainbridge, Irene's brother-in-law, then to Samuel Russell, owner of a wholesale grocery store in St. Louis; Harriet and Eliza's disposition during this period is unknown. Harriet gave birth to a second daughter, Lizzie, in 1845.
In 1846, Dred Scott attempted to buy freedom for his wife and family from Irene for $300. The offer was refused, so Scott and Harriet attempted to sue for their emancipation in the St. Louis Circuit Court. [NB: A January 10, 1886, posthumous article about Dred Scott, published in the St. Louis Daily Globe Democrat, claims the Scotts were approached by two attorneys, Burd and Risk, in 1838, and urged to sue Dr. Emerson for their freedom on the grounds that Dred had lived in a free state and territory, and was therefore permitted to sue under Missouri state statute. The article claims Scott lost and was returned to Dr. Emerson. The Missouri Historical Society makes no mention of the attorneys or this earlier case, nor has other supporting documentation been found.]
In the 1847 case Scott v. Emerson, (1847), against Dr. Emerson's widow, Scott claimed Mrs. Emerson was guilty of battery and that she imprisoned him and his family illegally, because they had gained their freedom while living in slave-free areas. Dred and Harriet's first attorney, Francis B. Murdoch, posted the required security on the Scott's behalf, but moved to California before the trail began. At this point, the children of Peter Blow, Scott's owner prior to Dr. Emerson, became involved in the freedom suits, providing both financial and legal assistance.
Samuel Mansfield Bay, a former Missouri legislator and State Attorney General, became the Scott's counsel of record in June 1847. While the judge, Alexander Hamilton, was sympathetic toward emancipation issues, Bay was unable to prove that Mrs. Emerson was holding him as a slave. Taylor Blow, son of Peter Blow, testified that his father had sold Dred Scott to Dr. Emerson. Catherine Scott, wife of a Fort Snelling military officer, also testified that she had hired Harriet while Emerson was stationed in Fort Jessup, Louisiana. Unfortunately, the testimony failed to prove the connection between the Scott family and Irene Scott, who had yet to marry Emerson at the times discussed. Although Samuel Russell, who had hired Scott after the Emersons married, also spoke on the plaintiffs' behalf, his testimony was impeached on a technicality. The jury returned a verdict for Mrs. Emerson.
Bay moved for a new trial at which he planned to present additional witnesses supporting Dred Scott's claims. The motion was granted, but due to errors (Dred Scott's new attorneys, Alexander Field and David Hall, approached the Missouri Supreme Court prematurely, and the case was remanded back to the original court), a heavy court schedule, a fire in the courthouse, and an outbreak of cholera, the trial didn't occur until 1850.
In the interim, the widow Emerson moved to Massachusetts and married Dr. Calvin Chaffee, a prominent abolitionist who won election to Congress shortly after the couple's wedding.
At some point, Irene Emerson (or Chaffee) attempted to distance herself from the legal proceedings, and transferred responsibility for hiring out the Blow family to the county sheriff. Charles Edmund LaBeaume, a St. Louis lawyer and member of the Blow family by marriage, hired the Scotts' in 1851 (they remained with LaBeaume for seven years).
At the second trial, Field and Hall bolstered their case by providing an affidavit from Adeline Russell indicating she had made financial arrangements directly with Irene Emerson for the employ of Dred Scott. With the connection to the plaintiff and respondent established, the jury agreed Dred Scott and his family should be freed under the "once free, always free" doctrine. Sanford appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court judgment by a vote of 2-1 in 1852.
In 1853, friends of the Scott family suggested filing suit in the federal Circuit Court for the District of Missouri under the diversity clause (the diversity clause gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases between citizens of different states). Unfortunately, the Blow family could no longer afford to underwrite Dred Scott's legal expenses. Charles La Beaume took responsibility for filing the case and briefs in federal court himself, and persuaded his friend, Roswell M. Field (no relation to Alexander Field), to argue the case pro bono.
At this point, Irene Emerson Chaffee apparently asked her brother, John Sanford, a New York businessman, to assume responsibility for the case. Sanford claimed to be the rightful owner of the Scott family, having allegedly purchased them directly from the late Dr. Emerson prior to his death. There are no papers or records indicating transfer of ownership, but Sanford may have had standing as executor of Dr. Emerson's estate, despite lying about ownership. Historians speculate Sanford's legal expenses may have been paid by his late wife's family, who were major slave holders in the state of Missouri.
The federal suit was similar in most respects to the original litigation in 1846, except that the Scott's daughters were added as plaintiffs, and the family now requested damages in the amount of $9,000.
The question of citizenship was originally raised in pretrial motions before the federal Circuit Court, when one of Sanford's attorneys, Hugh Garland, argued the court lacked jurisdiction because Dred Scott was not a citizen due to being a "negro of African descent." Field countered that Scott's ethnic heritage did not bar him from citizenship or the right to sue. Since this was an unsettled point of law, the court overruled Sanford, who then pled not guilty to Dred Scott's charges.
Supreme Court Case
The Circuit Court found in favor of Sanford, and Scott's attorney appealed to the US Supreme Court for the 1854 Term. Roswell requested Montgomery Blair, a St. Louis attorney living in Washington, DC, argue Dred Scott's case before the Court.
The question before the Court was distilled to the constitutionality of the "once free, always free" doctrine.
Montgomery Blair (Scott's attorney) argued that freedom based on residence in a free state or territory was permanent, and slavery did not reattach on return to a slave state. This ruling had stood in Missouri until the state supreme court had taken a partisan political stance in its 1852 majority opinion. He also stated that a "Negro of African descent" could be a citizen of the United States.
The respondent's attorneys, Reverdy Johnson and Henry S. Geyer, argued the Congressional authority to relieve a slave-owner of his property in so-called free states and territories was unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. Their position was that Dred Scott was never free to begin with.
The constitutional issues elevated the Dred Scott case to national prominence, and heightened tension between opposing interests.
On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the 7-2 verdict of the Court. The majority held that "A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States....Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit."
Under Taney's interpretation, neither Dred Scott nor any other African-American, had standing to sue for his or her freedom; nor did the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear the cases. [This holding alone was extremely crippling to legal emancipation prior to Lincoln's signing of the Emancipation Proclamation.] Since African-Americans could not be citizens of the United States, the Court reasoned, they could also not claim to be citizens of any of its states or territories, barring them from pursuing justice in the state courts, as well. "The plaintiff having admitted, by his demurrer to the plea in abatement, that his ancestors were imported from Africa and sold as slaves, he is not a citizen of the State of Missouri according to the Constitution of the United States, and was not entitled to sue in that character in the Circuit Court."
Further, Taney declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional as a state's rights issue, claiming Congress had no constitutional authority to restrict slave ownership among the states, or to deprive slave owners of their "property," once the federal territories became states: "The clause in the Constitution authorizing Congress to make all needful rules and regulations for the government of the territory and other property of the United States applies only to territory within the chartered limits of some one of the States when they were colonies of Great Britain, and which was surrendered by the British Government to the old Confederation of the States in the treaty of peace. It does not apply to territory acquired by the present Federal Government by treaty or conquest from a foreign nation."
"During the time it remains a Territory, Congress may legislate over it within the scope of its constitutional powers in relation to citizens of the United States, and may establish a Territorial Government, and the form of the local Government must be regulated by the discretion of Congress, but with powers not exceeding those which Congress itself, by the Constitution, is authorized to exercise over citizens of the United States in respect to the rights of persons or rights of property."
"Congress have no right to prohibit the citizens of any particular State or States from taking up their home there while it permits citizens of other States to do so. Nor has it a right to give privileges to one class of citizens which it refuses to another. The territory is acquired for their equal and common benefit, and if open to any, it must be open to all upon equal and the same terms.
"Every citizen has a right to take with him into the Territory any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recognizes as property.
"The Constitution of the United States recognizes slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind.
"The act of Congress, therefore, prohibiting a citizen of the United States from taking with him his slaves when he removes to the Territory in question to reside is an exercise of authority over private property which is not warranted by the Constitution, and the removal of the plaintiff by his owner to that Territory gave him no title to freedom."
Taney also put an end to the "once free, always free," doctrine replacing it with a concept more akin to "once owned, always owned," based on Fifth Amendment property protections.
"The plaintiff himself acquired no title to freedom by being taken by his owner to Rock Island, in Illinois, and brought back to Missouri. This court has heretofore decided that thestatus or condition of a person of African descent depended on the laws of the State in which he resided.
"It has been settled by the decisions of the highest court in Missouri that, by the laws of that State, a slave does not become entitled to his freedom where the owner takes him to reside in a State where slavery is not permitted and afterwards brings him back to Missouri."
The Court affirmed the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court and found in favor of Sanford. The seven members voting against Dred Scott were all pro-slavery and had ties to the South.
Justices Curtis and McLean dissented from the ruling, finding no constitutional grounds for prohibiting African-Americans from being citizens of the United States, and finding fault with Taney's contradictory claims that the Court lacked jurisdiction, while simultaneously adjudicating the case. When a court lacks jurisdiction, the case is supposed to be dismissed without a decision.
Taney apparently hoped his ruling would settle the question of slave ownership and reduce mounting tensions between the southern states and northern abolitionists; however, historians often cite the Dred Scott decision as one of the major catalysts to the Civil War.
Dred Scott almost had his happy ending despite the Supreme Court.
Revelation that Congressman Calvin Chaffee's wife, Irene, owned the most famous slave in the United States, brought heavy criticism, both in the press and on the floors of Congress, for the hypocrisy of an abolitionist owning a slave. Chaffee immediately arranged for ownership of the Scott family to be transferred to the late Peter Blow's son, Taylor, who was a resident of Missouri. Under law, only a citizen of Missouri had the right to emancipate a slave in that state.
Irene Chaffee, not satisfied with a nominal payment for the exchange, insisted Blow pay her back wages the Scotts earned during the seven years they lived with Charles LaBeaume, a sum she calculated at $750.00 (this was higher than the Scotts' market value had they been sold publicly). Blow paid the charge without complaint.
May 26, 1857, Taylor Blow took the Scott family to the St. Louis County courthouse and had them emancipated.
Dred Scott found work as a porter at Barnum's St. Louis Hotel, at Second and Walnut Streets in downtown St. Louis, and become something of a local celebrity. Unfortunately, he died of tuberculosis in September 1858, little more than a year after gaining his freedom.
Harriet Scott outlived her husband by 18 years. Eliza Scott died of an unspecified cause at the age of 25, sometime around 1863. Lizzie Scott married and had two sons, only one of whom lived to adulthood.
Dred Scott v. Sandford*, 60 US 393 (1857)
Although the case is published as Scott v. Sandford, the correct spelling of the defendant's last name was Sanford. The misspelling was the result of a clerical error that went undetected until sometime after the case was published.
The primary reason for the Civil War was the issue of slavery, more importantly the economic value it had to the South. The secession act of South Carolina specifically mentions that the North wanted to take away the property (slaves) of the South.
The North's economy was not dependent on slavery and did not see the existence of the "peculiar institution" as the South did. However, it is important to remember that by no means was every Northerner an abolitionist; in fact, the racism and anti-African American sentiment sometimes surpassed that of the South in US history.
The US Supreme Court had ruled in several cases that slavery was legal in the USA. Lincoln had no intention to stop slavery in the South. He said that many times. The problem the South had was that they believed Lincoln would do all he could to prevent slavery from expanding into territories that would eventually become States.
Why did the southern states want to secede? Because they felt that they should have powerful states rights and a less powerful central government (one that might remove slavery and otherwise dominate the South's economy). The Crittenden-Johnston Resolution stated that the war was being fought not to interfere with the southern way of life, but to keep the union together. This was Lincoln's justification to militarily end secession.
Another economic point was the issue of tariffs, an issue that goes back the the Jackson era. The South hated the tariffs because it hurt their economy, while Northern merchants loved them because they protected their industries.
Abraham Lincoln wasn't exactly liked by the South, given that he didn't even show up on the ballot in a couple states in the South. Lincoln claimed that any man who supported secession would be convicted of treason. The South claimed that secession was a Constitutional right when the government failed to support the interests of the people. Although Lincoln said he wasn't going to emancipate the slaves in his inaugural, South Carolina succeeded shortly after Lincoln became president. The South went to war to protect their rights. It had NOTHING to do with slavery.
No Slavery in the West
The fights over the status of slavery in the western territories were a harbinger to the future Civil War. The events like the admission of Missouri resulting in the Missouri Compromise and the admission of Kansas/Nebraska resulting in the Compromise of 1850 were only concessions that prolonged the Civil War. Additionally, these events over the balance of slave/free states would split the political parties. Although they temporarily abated the difference between the insatiability of the South for slavery and the desire for industry in the North, it was only a matter of time before the lines between the slave/free states became the Mason-Dixon line.
The Civil War was not fought because of slavery. Slavery only became an issue after the Emancipation Proclamation, although some people in the North were pushing for war to stop slavery. The war was fought because the North did not think that the Southern states were allowed to secede.
The US Civil War was the largest war for America, then and even to a degree looking forward from 1865 onwards. The answer to the cause of the war is as large as the war itself. The best way to answer this question is with this statement. The US Civil War was the result of Southern slave states believing that their way of life, slavery, and its economics were becoming marginalized. Marginalized to such a degree that independence from the United States was the best chance for the South to thrive. The American Civil War had many causes. Some include economic differences between the North and the South, states rights versus federal rights, and of course whether or not slaves should be legal.
1. abolition of slavery
The "Middle Passage" refers to the second leg in a triangular trading route that resulted in massive numbers of Africans being transported to America as slaves. The "Second Middle Passage" is a phrase coined to refer to the mass movement westward of slaves from the southern United States.
In essence, the second middle passage can be thought of as the second of two periods during which large numbers of African slaves were moved to environments that were very alien to them - a difficult experience that even further exacerbated the difficulties of slave life.
The Dred Scott decision effectively ended the Missouri Compromise, hardening the political rivalry between North and South and paving the way for the Civil War.
It determined slaves were not citizens of either their state of residence or the US, and therefore couldn't bring suit against their "owners" in court. According to Chief Justice Roger Taney, slaves were property, not humans.
The Supreme Court's ruling resulted in major violence, stirring the deep‐seated emotions in the already heated battle of race relations in the United States.
The Dred Scott case played a major role in precipitating the Civil War. The Supreme Court's ruling resulted in major violence, stirring the deep‐seated emotions in the already heated battle of race relations in the United States.
In a 7-2 ruling, the US Supreme Court held the following:
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857)
For more information, see Related Links, below.
I don't think all police hate blacks due to the fact that some cops themselves are black. The problem is that since there are racist people, there will undoubtedly be racist cops. those cops are the ones that unnecessarily arrest, kill, or act violently towards black people. Most black people are aware of this, and when my mom always told me that if I ever encountered a cop, to tell them that I would like to speak to my lawyer and was not obliged to do anything else and if the attacked, they were the ones in the wrong and would be considered racist for attacking a black woman unprovoked.
Frederick Douglass (1818-1895) is famous because he became one of the greatest anti-slavery leaders in US history. Also he put great effort into the rights for women (women's suffragist movement). He supported women's rights because he thought everyone should be treated equally. He was also famous for the books and autobiographies he wrote.
Abraham Lincoln used many terms when talking about slavery, including:
"the oppression of negroes"
"institution of slavery"
After the Emancipation Proclaimation, Abraham Lincoln called slavery illegal in the Southern states currently fighting against the Union.
Because the new state of California extended so far either side of the Missouri line that it could not fit the terms of the Missouri Compromise.
A new compromise had to be worked out, and this one did not last.
Many thought that it would be like heaven. But, while working as slaves they had no real idea of what freedom would be like.A free person from a less-developed, less-educated background, when captivated, wouldn't know what freedom meant.
However, after gaining their freedom, many migrated to the cities, looking for work. Others remained on the farms where they had been slaves, and received wages for the work they performed, using those wages to pay for food and clothing, etc. In many cases, their living conditions did not improve, and their work hours did not change.
The answer above is partially incorrect. Many slaves could not get employed and lived much worse lives than they did under a slaveholder. (Even if they did reach the north)
One of the reasons for Child Labor to occur, especially in undeveloped countries, is because it is needed due to poverty.
There is a difference between attitude and toleration between the Western World and the Developing countries. For example, a family in Sweden or America frowns upon child labor and believe it is not suitable for children to work; they should be educated and taken care of, letting children be children.
For a family in Bangladesh or Somalia education for children is a distant dream. However, the families poverty and need for sources may evolve in children working. It is not frowned upon, although schooling would be the preferable option.
Child labor is a cause of poverty, lack of resources, lack of money, but also the lack of schooling.
North and South disagreed sharply about whether there should be any new slave-states.
Every time a new state entered the Union as free soil, it diminished the South's voting power in Congress.
he died of heartbreak, 4 years after his daughter was sold to another plantation, for trying to help her lover escape.
wrong..as written in the book..After Kizzy was sold off..she later returned, many years later to discover that her mother was sold to another plantation and that kunta died of a broken heart 4 years later after this event.
As a means to have the Missouri Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave law was passed by Congress. It called for the return of all escaped slaves to the North be returned to their owners. Rewards and bounties were offered as part of the law to encourage compliance in the North.
You betcha! Cheese is a major component of a healthy hamster diet. Good luck and buy Kraft, not generic.
...was moderate on the slavery issue, and had not yet started to worry about Britain planning to send aid to the Confederates. (The Emancipation Proclamation was issued mainly to prevent this.)
Like most people, he thought it would be a short war.
No. It was the Northern aboltionists who did.
The South reacted with horror. It confirmed their worst fears about the prospect of a nationwide slave rebellion.
They were kept in the hold of the slave ship , chained together with little room to move about. According to the first answer to this question, they were given exercise by being forced to dance for two hours for the amusement of the crew.
Slavery has not been abolished, meaning ended. Most countries have made it illegal.
In the 1800s, those areas with slavery (or the semblance of it) were becoming more and more liberal, in line with the changing of the world at the time. Because of the rise in education and political awareness as well as the growing realization that people of different color or ethnicity were just as human as anyone else - in several countries, this was also due to what was best said in the words of Alexander II of Russia, paraphrased as "we must abolish it from the top down before it removes itself from the bottom up".
Thus, slavery was abolished in many areas. This was formalized in 1948 with Article 4 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and almost every country in the world has made slavery illegal in accordance with it.
Why a certain country abolished slavery depends entirely on the country in question. However, it was usually based on one or both of the following factors:
(1) The country recognized slavery's moral incorrectness
(2) The country faced economic or political consequences in the international community if it did not abolish slavery, especially when key trading partners or allies had already emancipated their slaves.
Rosa, wanted to change the fact that they where treated different. They wheref seperated or segregated! :)
How many dollars make 600000 cents?
Asked By Wiki User
What is mrflimflams roblox password?
Asked By Wiki User
How many countries end with a vowel?
Asked By Wiki User
What is 8.275 rounded to the nearest ounce?
Asked By Wiki User
How many people traveled on a slave ship?
Asked By Wiki User
How did Uncle Tom's Cabin address slavery?
Asked By Wiki User
What were Harriet Tubmans siblings names?
Asked By Wiki User
What did people do to slaves?
Asked By Wiki User
Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.