209k views
3 votes
Can someone give me a REAL answer pls:)

Can someone give me a REAL answer pls:)-example-1
User Marketta
by
4.0k points

1 Answer

6 votes

Answer:

Scott was considered as property that could not be taken from its owner.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the way this ruling was written, Dred Scott didn't have the right to sue in a Missouri's courts, since he wasn't considered a citizen.

Section C also basically states the the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and was considered void, as it deprived a US citizen of their property, which is what slaves were considered as at the time.

User Flatliner DOA
by
4.8k points