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the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.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:
a. Seeing other participants refusing to press the shock levers
b. When the instructions to continue came from another participant
c. When the person being shocked was in the same room as the participant
Explanation:
Stanley Milgram was a famous psychologist who has conducted a famous experiment on "obedience to authority figures" at Yale University. He conducted the experiment to focus or analyze the conflict associated with personal conscience and obedience to authority figures. He argued that people tend to obey commands associated with some authority figures. However, the rate of obedience is being decreased due to many factors including participants get influenced by other participants present in the same scenario.
Answer:
Parole board
Explanation:
The parole board is an administrative board that sees if an offender or prisoner should be freed from prison on parole after they have served part of their sentence. The board carries out a risk assessment on the prisoner to see if it is safe for them to be integrated back into the society or if they would pose a threat.
Answer:
Divorces in young adulthood tend to be full of anger and conflict, with each partner bitterly blaming the other for the failure of the marriage. In contrast, midlife divorces tend to be between couples whose love has gone cold.
Explanation:
A mid-life crisis is a zone in which a person enters when he becomes aware of the fact that he has completed half of his life and less time is left for him. The divorces which prevail during midlife results in living apart from each other and it cools down the relationship. Such divorces are very stressful for women as compared to men.
