Question

100 POINTS IF YOU HELP PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Answer 1

Answer:

no

Explanation:

1) no, first off amendment 6 of the constitution says the defendant/prosecutor have a right to an impartial jury. In 1857, the only jurors were white men and coming from a slave state such as Missouri, the case was doomed from the start. Also, there are certain unalienable rights which no one can take away(stated in constitution as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) Scott had to give up all 3 of those rights when he got kidnapped.

2)  One thing I learned from this article is that Taney had no evidence whatsoever to prove that the constitution meant to exclude black slaves. Most of his "evidence" is theoretical(WHERE in the constitution does it say, a perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery) and in the article itself it talks about the 13th and 14th amendments giving direct proof that Dred Scott is a free, American citizen

Hope this helps!

Answer 2

Answer:

agree

Explanation:

they did this for freedom of slavery