The answer is Yes, it was justified for the historic figure you read about above to go against the law of the land of their day, which controlled African Americans' freedom.
In the aforementioned case of Dred Scott v. Stanford, an enslaved Black man called Dred Scott and his wife, Harriet, petitioned the St. Louis Circuit Court for their freedom. They said that they were free since they lived in a free territory where slavery was outlawed.
If we were to consider the national legislation, which declared that their region was the one where slavery was outlawed, it would be justifiable.
Nonetheless, the top court decided against Dred Scott. The Scott v. Sandford ruling, which many legal experts believe to be the worst the Supreme Court has ever made.
What is the modern term for slavery?
The terms "trafficking in persons," "human trafficking," and "modern slavery" are used as catch-all phrases to describe both forced labor and sex trafficking.
The three different categories of slaves?
Slavery has been practiced historically in a variety of forms, including chattel, bond, forced labour, and sexual slavery. The basic elements of slavery, as is commonly acknowledged, include the deprivation of liberty of movement and legal rights.
To know more about Slavery visit: