DRED SCOTT DECISION where the Supreme Court ruling stated slaves did not have a right to sue since they were not citizens, but merely property.
These were their arguments.
<span>Dred Scott:
When a person enters a free State or territory, the free status overrides the previous condition of servitude. Since slavery was forbidden in the free States and territories by
federal and State laws, Dred Scott became free when he entered Illinois and Wisconsin.</span><span>
Sandford:
To deprive a person of property (in this case, Dred Scott) without due process or just compensation violated the 5th Amendment, which states that “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Dred Scott was still a slave and no master's property rights could be limited or taken away by a State or federal law.</span>
Answer:
No
Explanation:
Because when people get a chance to change the law of the country then the situation will go out of control. You can look at the situation currently people cannot change the law so they are breaking the law. It will be like a license to break laws.
Answer:General Sherman's troops captured Atlanta on September 2, 1864. ... derived its strength not from its fighting forces but from the material and moral support of ... for Georgia's civilians that they would demand an end to the war. ... taking as much other food–especially bread and potatoes–as they could carry.
Explanation:
Yes the correct answer was
C) ratification of all treaties and Presidential appointments.
Thanks Juniorthekidnextdoor
