The Dred Scott decision was the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on March 6, 1857, that having lived in a free state and territory did not entitle an enslaved person, Dred Scott, to his freedom. In essence, the decision argued that, as someone's property, Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in a federal court.
When we explain the evidence, we have to talk about how the evidence we gave <u>proves</u><u> </u>our claim.
Answer:
Except for the second statement, all others are correct descriptions of the Jim Crow laws.
Explanation:
Jim Crow laws started after the Reconstruction period (1863-1877) and served to keep now former slaves, the African-Americans, from having equal rights as the white people had.
Based on the truthless argument of "separate but equal" these laws created spaces that black people did not have access to, leaving the best positions in many places for the whites. The separation was the way white supremacists chose back then to enforce their violence upon black people.
The "equal" in the aforementioned phrase was empty as violence against African-Americans was explicit; lynchings of black men, for example, were common. Black American citizens didn't have their civil rights respected, not in practice (the right to vote was constantly disrespected) nor in theory (Jim Crow laws violated many civil rights)
