The Dred Scott Supreme Court case ruled that slaves are property and are allowed in all states/territories, even if slavery is outlawed in the state constitution.
This idea supports the concept of nullification, as states that abolished slavery would nullify (refuse) to follow this ruling because they felt it was unconstitutional.
This idea also limited the power of the federal government to restrict the expansion of slavery because the court ruled that slaves do not have legal rights and are considered property no matter where they go. This meant that slavery can essentially exist anywhere in the US and the federal government couldn't change that unless they made a national law/amendment that outlawed slavery.
Answer:
Portugal
Explanation:
Castile and Aragon united when Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile married, while Portugal remained independent.
Answer:
It was an urban movement at a time when most slaves worked on rural properties. Yet the abolitionst movement was also more concerned with freeing the white population from what had come to be viewed as the burden of slavery
Explanation:
Answer:
Need context but likely Turkish Muslims
The answer is B.
Schenk vs US involves a freedom of speech case in which Schenk encouraged American citizens to avoid the military draft during World War I.
The Supreme Court ruled this was not protected free speech because it provides a clear and present danger to American citizens. The court felt that influencing people to not join the war presented a danger to America’s war effort.
