The U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Sanford v. Dred Scott, a case that intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery.
In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Scott lived in Wisconsin with his master, Dr. John Emerson, for several years before returning to Missouri, a slave state. In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued his master’s widow for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived as a resident of a free state and territory. He won his suit in a lower court, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision. Scott appealed the decision, and as his new master, J.F.A. Sanford, was a resident of New York, a federal court decided to hear the case on the basis of the diversity of state citizenship represented. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was divided along slavery and antislavery lines; although the Southern justices had a majority.
During the trial, the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Southern majority responded by ruling on March 6, 1857, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Three of the Southern justices also held that African Americans who were slaves or whose ancestors were slaves were not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. These rulings all confirmed that, in the view of the nation’s highest court, under no condition did Dred Scott have the legal right to request his freedom. The Supreme Court’s verdict further inflamed the irrepressible differences in America over the issue of slavery, which in 1861 erupted with the outbreak of the American Civil War.
Answer:
judging
Explanation:
Anton's disregard for the entire speech of Callie after he concluded she is not a credible speaker because she is stumbled on some of her words is a clear barrier to listening. Callie still communicated good information but because Anton had concluded she isn't worth listening to, he had not listened and gotten the information Callie was passing.
Answer:
Select only the statements below that:” A. that analytical philosophy provides definite answers to ethical dilemmas“Prof. Bill Bakers sets out as the purpose of this course. Correct answers receive positive partial credit. Incorrect answers receive negative partial credit. The score is the sum of partial credits but not less than zero.
Explanation:
Analytic philosophy is a tradition of philosophy that began around the turn of the 20th century and continues to today. Like any philosophical tradition it includes many conflicting thinkers in a broad umbrella with its own particular lineage and history and so is resistant to a clean-cut summary.
A defence mechanism would be the Freudian term specified in referring tactics <span>that the ego uses to reduce anxiety by unconsciously distorting reality. In addition, a defence mechanism is one of the necessary psychological methods wherein the body counter-attacks viruses and bacteria invading our body.</span>
Answer:
B: Germany was unable to repay its war debts when loans from the United States were no longer available.
Explanation:
I also had this question and this was correct.
