Answer:
It ruled against Dred Scott and set aside the Missouri Compromise and popular sovereignty.
Explanation:
The case Dred Scott v. Sanford argued whether a slave can obtain his freedom when he step on a state that make slavery illegal.
It happened in 1857. At that time, Dred Scott's (A slave) was taken by his owner from Missouri to Illinois. (According to Missouri compromise, It is still legal to own slaves in Missouri but It is Illegal to do so in Illinois).
Scott tried to make his case to the court stating that as soon as he entered Illinois, his status as a slave should be voided and he should be considered as a citizen.
At that time, The Missouri supreme court ruled against Scott's plead. The court stated that he could never be a citizen since citizenship only apply to white people. So he's still a slave no matter where his slave owner took him.
The impact of <em>Paula Lehner's use of the word </em><em>"tools"</em><em> in paragraph 3 of "Fight Fire with Fire"</em> is <em>C. It emphasizes that </em><em>prescribed burns </em><em>should be used only under specific conditions.</em>
Prescribed or controlled burns are used when the conditions are right <em>to create forest access, reduce insects, and increase the health of plants and the environment.</em> On the other hand, prescribed burns can damage the environment and pollute the air, but wildfires create far worse situations.
The word "tools" does not mean that
- <em>A. It minimizes the emotional reaction people often have to prescribed burns. </em>
- <em>B. It indicates that using prescribed burns in firefighting is similar to other trades </em>
- <em> D. It suggests that prescribed burns have costs similar to other implements used by firefighters.</em>
Thus, according to Paula Lehner, prescribed burns should be used as tools to prevent wildfires.
Learn more: brainly.com/question/15657935
Mid Latitudes IE:
Oregon
Nothern California
Wyoming
Colorado
Iowa
North Carolina
Ohio
Virginia