Question

For a majority of northerners, the most outrageous part of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott case was

Answer 1

that Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in any territory.

Step-by-step explanation:

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans who were African descendents, regardless if they were free or slave, were not considered to be American citizens and, as a result, they could not file a lawsuit in federal courts. The Court also ruled that Congress was not empowered to ban slavery in the territories of the United States. Finally, the Court decided that living in a free state, even for many years, did not free slaves, and declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.

Dred Scott was a black slave who filed a lawsuit against Sandford so as to get his freedom. He argued that as he had lived in a free state, he was also a free man.

Northerners were against slavery. By means of this ruling, the Court benefited the southern states.

Answer 2

that Congress had never had the power to prohibit slavery in any territory.

Step-by-step explanation:

The Dred Scott Case against Sandford (also known as The Dred Scott Case) was a crucial lawsuit in the history of the United States, resolved by the Supreme Court of that country in 1857 in a decision that prohibited any inhabitant of African descent , whether they were slaves or not, the right to citizenship and that took away from Congress the authority to ban slavery in the country's federal territories.