The answer is B. To disrupt the South's ability to trade
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:
don't obey any laws that are unjust
Explanation:
Answer:
Explanation: During both periods, Congress passed laws restricting the civil liberties of American citizens that met with overall public support” is the one statement that explains how the Red Scare of the 1920s and the Red Scare of the 1950s were similar.
