The case of Dred Scott v. Sandford held in part:Group of answer choicesthe concept of “separate but equal” was unconstitutional.states could determine whether former slaves could be citizens.freed slaves did not have the right to freedom in territories where slavery was still legal.blacks had equal rights with whites.
Question
The case of Dred Scott v. Sandford held in part:Group of answer choicesthe concept of “separate but equal” was unconstitutional.states could determine whether former slaves could be citizens.freed slaves did not have the right to freedom in territories where slavery was still legal.blacks had equal rights with whites.
Solution
The Dred Scott v. Sandford case held that freed slaves did not have the right to freedom in territories where slavery was still legal. This was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that ruled that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. The court also ruled that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved African American man who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott's request and in doing so, ruled an Act of Congress in this case—the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which prohibited slavery north of the parallel 36°30′ north—to be unconstitutional for the second time in its history.
Similar Questions
In the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, the Supreme Court ruled that:A.slavery could not be practiced in any new states or territories.B.African Americans had no legal rights in the United States.C.the legality of slavery should be left up to state governments.D.states had the right to ignore federal laws they opposed.
The Supreme Court opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford asserted which of the following?Group of answer choicesCongress could outlaw slavery in the new territories, but any slaves who escaped had to be returned to their ownersCongress had misinterpreted the intentions of the Framers and slave owners should be allowed to import more slaves from overseasAfrican Americans were citizens under the Constitution and those who escaped did not have to be returned to their ownersAfrican Americans were not citizens under the Constitution and Congress could not outlaw slavery
In the controversial Dredd Scott decision, the Supreme Court declared that:Group of answer choicesneither enslaved or free Black Americans had the right to become citizensBlack Americans were free only when they entered free territoryDred Scott did not have the right to file a suitonly Congress had the right to regulate slavery in the states and territories
In which case did the plaintiffs claim that they were being denied their right to equal protection of the law and that the laws of “separate but equal” were, in fact, not equal?Group of answer choicesDred Scott v. SanfordBrown v. Board of EducationRegents of the University of California v. BakkeStrauder v. West Virginia
After the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, the concept of “separate but equal” became entrenched in the Southern states through the enactment of:Group of answer choicesthe desegregation of public schools.the Fourteenth Amendment.Jim Crow laws.the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Upgrade your grade with Knowee
Get personalized homework help. Review tough concepts in more detail, or go deeper into your topic by exploring other relevant questions.