Dred Scott Vs. Stanford case was heard in Supreme court of US which issued its final ruling saying that Africans whether free or slaves were not the citizens of US.
Explanation:
Dred Scott who is a plaintiff and a slave was bought by John Emerson in Missouri. Later Emerson came along with Dred Scott to Illinois where Scott married and as they were returning to Missouri, Emerson died. Now Dred Scott decided to sue for his freedom in the federal court. He claimed he was free as he lived in the free state.
Robert Taney who was the chief justice issued the land mark decision that African american though free or slave were not the citizen of US and hence Dred Scott had no right to sue in the federal court. Dred Scott lost his case and this ruling was condemned universally as one of the racism based verdicts which paved way for the amendments of the statutes pertaining to the rights of African Americans.
Answer: Make him or her Fruit trays, give them treatments and healthy diets, and check up on them every week, day, or hourly depending on what they have.
Explanation: I love taking care of people. :)
"Aggressor" is a fairly political and loose term. I believe they were both proportionally bad in the situation. However since you are likely looking for an argument for one side, I suppose I would have to go with the USSR. They started the Berlin blockade which both violated treaties and nearly led to a large war. At the time in Russia, if anyone disagreed with their secular agenda or government they would be exiled. I think it's important though to again point out that contrary to popular belief, both sides got into unwanted wars and did aggressive things during the time and neither should be dubbed the only "aggressor"
Look out for white vans XD no but seriously most people become victioms from kidnappings or are bought at human auctions
Answer:
Yes, but it might be a little different depending on what type.
Explanation:
