The U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Sanford v. Dred Scott, a case that intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery.
In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Scott lived in Wisconsin with his master, Dr. John Emerson, for several years before returning to Missouri, a slave state. In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued his master’s widow for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived as a resident of a free state and territory. He won his suit in a lower court, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision. Scott appealed the decision, and as his new master, J.F.A. Sanford, was a resident of New York, a federal court decided to hear the case on the basis of the diversity of state citizenship represented. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was divided along slavery and antislavery lines; although the Southern justices had a majority.
During the trial, the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Southern majority responded by ruling on March 6, 1857, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Three of the Southern justices also held that African Americans who were slaves or whose ancestors were slaves were not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. These rulings all confirmed that, in the view of the nation’s highest court, under no condition did Dred Scott have the legal right to request his freedom. The Supreme Court’s verdict further inflamed the irrepressible differences in America over the issue of slavery, which in 1861 erupted with the outbreak of the American Civil War.
The girls who have grown up in paternalistic families are more fearful of legal sanctions whereas the boys have more offensive behavior.
<h3>What is the family structure?</h3>
The relatives and members that togetherly form a family are said to have a family structure. They can be a single or nuclear family, joint family, step-family, and many more.
A paternalistic family is the one where the person has influenced another person in a fatherly way against their own will or consent. The males in these families have dominating and offensive nature in comparison to the girls. They do not allow to go outside for working in a job or occupation of their own interest due to which they are not able to get socialized.
Therefore, the girls who belong to the paternalistic family do not get socialized because of legal sanctions, in contrast to the boys who have offending nature.
Learn more about the paternalistic family in provided link:
brainly.com/question/6194841
#SPJ1
Answer:
Legal use of hazard lights: if the car is in an accident or other wise disabled (unmoving) and located near a road (ie, the shoulder)
Illegal use of hazard lights: In heavy rain or any other time the vehicle is in actual motion.
Hazard lights are used to indicate and UNMOVING vehicle.
