The Supreme Court didn't agree with you in the Dred Scott case. It said that a slave was property and couldn't be taken away from his owner.
http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/wwww/us/dredscottdecisiondef.htm
TRUE OR FALSE The Dred Scott case concluded the slaves would remain slaves even if they lived in a free stated
my answer - false
if they lived in a fee state, they're FREE that means that they're not slaves anymore
right?????
7 answers
slave who forever changed the definition of property. He went with his master to Illinois and Minnesota and claimed that this made him a free man. The Missouri Supreme Court found otherwise. Scott, sued his new owner, John Sanford of New York, for damages, alleging physical abuse. A federal court ruled that Scott was a citizen. But the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Chief Justice Roger Taney, in an 1857 plurality opinion, said that African-Americans could never become United States citizens and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. Further, the Court said, Congress could not constitutionally exclude slavery from the territories.
So -- is your answer True or False?
well let's see....
The Supreme Court didn't agree .....
slave was property and couldn't be taken away from his owner....
true
The Supreme Court didn't agree .....
slave was property and couldn't be taken away from his owner....
true
Yes. The answer is True.
thank you
You're welcome.
1 answer