Answer:
The decision in Scott v. Sandford was received with joy and relief in the south, because much of the region's society owned slaves; while in the north it caused much disgust and annoyance among abolitionists.
Explanation:
Dred Scott was born in slavery around 1799 in Virginia. He moved with his master, Peter Blow, to Missouri in 1830. After Blow died two years later, military surgeon John Emerson Scott bought and brought him to Illinois and then to a town in Wisconsin, places where slaves were prohibited by law.
After Emersons death, Scott tried to buy his freedom and his family's from Emerson's widow, Irene, but she did not accept his offer. Scott, therefore, in 1850, decided to go to trial and demand his liberty in view of the fact that he had lived for eight years in counties where slavery was illegal and received no legal recognition. Henry Taylor Blow, son of Peters Blow and Scott's childhood friend, funded the couple's lawsuit and provided legal advice to them in litigation. After three appeals, the lawsuit was submitted to the Supreme Court in 1857.
On March 6, the Supreme Court ruled against Scott by seven votes against two. The court's finding was that neither Scott nor other African Americans were considered citizens, and therefore Scott was not entitled to litigate for US law. Furthermore, the Supreme Court denied that Scott had been freed by living in Missouri because the Constitution required the government not to deprive anyone of its legal property without litigation. Thus, in fact, all laws that prohibited or restricted slavery in the United States were contrary to the Constitution.
Answer:
C . A large pool of cheap labor
Explanation:
Answer:
Mound builders are known for the various cultures collectively termed "Mound Builders" were inhabitants of North America who, during a 5,000-year period, constructed various styles of earthen mounds for religious, ceremonial, burial, and elite residential purposes.
Explanation:
Totalitarian governments usually convince their people two support them in two ways: (1) propaganda extolling the virtues of the state and repressing/torturing the dissent and (2) creating a scapegoat or focusing extensively on a genuine threat that the totalitarian regime can claim to be fighting in the people's name.
