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the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.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.
Answer:
the answer is D Revenue is the total amount
Explanation:
I did the test
Answer:
The answer is stereotype threats.
Explanation:
Stereotype threats refer to a person feels susceptible to conforming to stereotypes. For this reason, older people in the example who hadn't been subjected to ageisn (discrimination based on age) showed better memory skills, as they didn't want to conform to older people's stereotypical ideas about memory.
According to self-determination theory, competence, autonomy, and relatedness are the primary motivations for behaviour.
<h3>What is self-determination theory?</h3>
The self-determination hypothesis postulates that three essential and typical psychological needs are what propel human development and evolution. This theory contends that when individuals' needs for autonomy, competence, and connection are satisfied.
A person decide to stop smoking in order to spend more time with your children by exercising because you are aware of the benefits to your health. A young person who respects responsibility and completes their tasks.
Thus, it is self-determination theory.
For more details self-determination theory, about click here:
brainly.com/question/11732020
#SPJ4
Answer:
It would need to be broken down first due to its size, it wouldn't fit
Explanation:
A starch molecule is too big and it must be broken down before going through to the digestive system
