1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Lerok [7]
3 years ago
13

Why were abolitionists outraged by the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?

History
2 answers:
marysya [2.9K]3 years ago
7 0
Dred Scott was an enslaved man who was taken into free states by his owners. Scott attempted to sue for his freedom, but was denied. The case set the precedent that slaves were to be in bondage in free states and territories, as well as slave states and territories.
rjkz [21]3 years ago
3 0

Option C, It declared slaves to be in bondage even in free states or territories, is the right answer.

The supreme court of the United States on March 6, 1857, asserted that a Slave ( Dred Scott) who was living in the free state and territory of the United States was not allowed to his freedom and that the African -Americans were not and could never be subject of the U.S. Citizenship. Supreme Court also declared that Congress had no power to exclude slavery from the territories of U.S. This became Abolitionists (the White Northerners, who opposed Slavery) outraged from the decision made by the Supreme Court.


You might be interested in
How did the iron industry benefit from the steam engine
Romashka [77]
The usefulness of iron had been known for centuries however, it was difficult to produce because ovens had to be constantly heated, something the steam engine could do.
7 0
3 years ago
How did the make-up of the Roman Senate change over time?
vladimir1956 [14]

First it's important to think about the complications involved with the word “empire.” Rome was an empire (country ruling over other countries) before the first emperor, but the word derives from imperator, the name used by Augustus. But it meant “wielder of military power,” a kind of uber-general and was specifically not supposed to connote the idea of an emperor as we think of it today (the goal was to avoid being called a king or being seen as one). Earlier, Augustus was known as <span>dux </span>(leader) and also, later <span>princeps </span>(first citizen). As far as I know, in the days of the republic, Rome called the provinces just provinciaeor socii or amici, without a general term for their empire unless it was imperium romanum, but that really meant the military power of Rome (over others) without being a reference to the empire as a political entity. It didn’t become an empire because of the emperors, and the way we use these words now can cloud the already complicated political situation in Rome in the 1st century BC.

The point is this: the Roman Republic did have an empire as we conceive it, but the Senate was unwilling to make changes that would have enabled it to retain power over the empire. By leaving it to proconsuls to rule provinces, they allowed proconsuls, who were often generals of their armies whether they were actually proconsul at any given time or not, to accrue massive military power (imperium) that could be exerted over Rome itself. (This, by the way, is in part the inspiration behind moving American soldiers around so much—it takes away the long-term loyalty a soldier may have toward a particular general.)

So the Senate found itself in no position to defy Caesar, who named himself the constitutional title of dictator for increasing periods until he was dictator for life, or Octavian (later named Augustus), who eventually named himself imperator.

The Senate had plenty of warning about this. The civil wars between Sulla and Marius gave plenty of reason for it to make real changes, but they were so wedded to the mos maiorum (tradition of the ancestors) that they were not willing to address the very real dangers to the republic that their constitution, which was designed for a city-state, was facing (not that I have too many bright ideas about what they could have done).

To finally come around to the point, the Senate went from being the leading body of Rome to being a rubber stamp on whatever the imperator wished, but there was no single moment when Rome became an empire and the Senate lost power, and these transformations don't coincide.

For one thing, the second triumvirate was legally sanctioned (unlike the informal first triumvirate), so it was a temporary measure—it lasted two 5-year terms— and the time Octavian spent as dux was ambiguous as to where he actually stood or would stand over the long term (in 33 BC, the second term of the second triumvirate expired, and he was not made imperator until 27). When he named himself imperator, he solidified that relationship and took on the posts of consul and tribune (and various combinations of posts as time went on).

If we simplify, we would say that the Senate was the leading body of Rome before the first emperor and a prestigious but powerless body afterwards, though senators were influential in their own milieus.

One other thing to keep in mind is that Octavian’s rise to Caesar Imperator Augustus Was by no means peaceful and amicable. He gets a reputation in many people’s minds as dictatorial but stable and peaceful, but the proscriptions of the second triumvirate were every bit as bloody and greedy as those of Sulla. Ironically, it was Julius Caesar who was forgiving to his former enemies after he named himself dictator. Augustus did end widespread killings and confiscations after becoming imperator, but that was only after striking fear into everyone and wiping out all his enemies, including the likes of Cicero<span>.</span>

6 0
3 years ago
In your own words, explain why progressives participating in the temperance movement would want to prohibit alcohol? ANSWER QUIC
tensa zangetsu [6.8K]

Answer:

The temperance movement, discouraging the use of alcoholic beverages, had been active and key words as temperance, prohibition, saloon, alcohol or alcoholic beverage

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
Help please! "Who were the early explorers; what countries did they represent and where did they travel to?"
Trava [24]
Pedro cabral portugal nobel man
3 0
3 years ago
As an Indian woman, I am happy about some of the changes the British have made however it was not their place to decide what to
Neko [114]

Answer: a. loss of traditions and customs

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • During the late 1800s, patterns of opium consumption in the united states __________.
    12·1 answer
  • Which events in the post World War One period Helped Adolf Hitler rise to power
    10·1 answer
  • Who set up trading stations along the indian coast during the 1700s?
    13·1 answer
  • Even if the beggar (odysseus) succeeded in bending the bow, what did antinous threaten?
    8·1 answer
  • Who is more powerful-the African man or the snake-man? What
    11·1 answer
  • What 1935 act raised taxes on wealthy people and corporations? a. Revenue Act c. Income Tax Act b. Second New Deal d. Social Sec
    5·1 answer
  • Describe FOUR important aspects of a Communist Government.
    8·2 answers
  • Where did the arab spring uprisings occur in 2010 and 2011?
    11·1 answer
  • Many believe the U.S. Constitution was made to be slow and time consuming. If this is true, why would the Founding Fathers have
    13·1 answer
  • Public action committees are primarily concerned with __________. A. donating money to candidates and political parties who supp
    7·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!