138k views
2 votes
3 Points

What reason did the Supreme Court give for its ruling that Dred Scott, a black
man, could not be a citizen of the United States?
O
A. That blacks were inferior and had no rights
O
B. That Scott was an abolitionist, which was illegal
O
C. That the U.S. Constitution applied only to whites
O
D. That it was up to Scott's owner to make him a citizen
SUBMIT

2 Answers

3 votes

Answer:

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that the Constitution of the United States was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and therefore the rights and privileges it confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.[2][3] The decision was made in the case of Dred Scott, an enslaved black man whose owners had taken him from Missouri, which was a slave-holding state, into the Missouri Territory, most of which had been designated "free" territory by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. When his owners later brought him back to Missouri, Scott sued in court for his freedom, claiming that because he had been taken into "free" U.S. territory, he had automatically been freed, and was legally no longer a slave. Scott sued first in Missouri state court, which ruled that he was still a slave under its law. He then sued in U.S. federal court, which ruled against him by deciding that it had to apply Missouri law to the case. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court

User Casper Nybroe
by
5.7k points
1 vote

Simple Answer:

A. That black were inferior and had no rights.

Step-by-step explanation:

I got the answer from APEX

User Kirkegaard
by
5.4k points