Question

PLEASE HURRY 50PTS

Answer 1

The correct answers are:

“The Constitution refers to slaves as ‘persons held to service in one State’”

“Acts of Congress as prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude within that part of the Territory of Wisconsin . . . were constitutional and valid laws.”

Answer 2

The correct answers are 1. "The Constitution refers to slaves as ‘persons held to service in one State’” and 5. “Acts of Congress as prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude within that part of the Territory of Wisconsin . . . were constitutional and valid laws.”

Explanation:

Dred Scott v. Sandford was landmark decision case that occurred when Dred Scott, a slave, sued to get his freedom from Sandford who was his "owner", Dred Scott decided to sue mainly because Sandford took Scott from a territory that approved slavery to Wisconsin territory where slavery was illegal. However, the court decided Dred Scott could not be free because the constitution did not recognize slavers as citizens and therefore the rights and privileges of citizens could not be applied to Scott.

In the excerpt presented its author Justice Benjamin Curtis who was an American attorney during the 19th century explains the reasons why he did not agree with the decision taken by the court in this case, by the providing reasons and excerpts taken from the constitutions that show the court had reasons to take a different decision. This occurs mainly in "The Constitution refers to slaves as ‘persons held to service in one State’” because this shows the constitution recognized slavers were people and therefore the court should have guaranteed the rights of Scott. Also, this occurs in Acts of Congress as prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude within that part of the Territory of Wisconsin . . . were constitutional and valid laws" because this shows, Scott had the right to be freed because there were laws that approved this in the Territory of Wisconsin.