how did the supreme court decision in dred scott v. sandord increase sectionalism?
a. it gave full citizenship to african americans
b. it allowed congress to prohibit slavery west of the mississippi river
c. it denied congress the power to regulate slavery in the territories
d. it left all questions regarding slavery up to the executive branch.
helloooo?????????
answer lol guys
No it is not A it is B
someone pls help
Follow Writeteacher's advice, or, as a last resort, read your text materials. This may also help:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/32a.asp
The Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford did not give full citizenship to African Americans (option a). Instead, it actually further entrenched the institution of slavery and increased sectionalism in the United States. Let's explore why:
The correct answer is option c. The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford denied Congress the power to regulate slavery in the territories. This decision had significant implications for the nation's sectional divide.
To understand why this increased sectionalism, you need to know some background information. The United States was divided into two main regions: the North and the South. The North opposed slavery and sought to limit its expansion, while the South relied heavily on slavery for its agrarian economy and supported its preservation.
In the Dred Scott case, Dred Scott, an enslaved African American, sued for his freedom, arguing that his residence in a free state (Illinois) and a free territory (Wisconsin) entitled him to freedom. However, the Supreme Court, in its 1857 decision, ruled against Scott.
The Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, made several key rulings. First, it held that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, were not citizens and therefore did not have standing to sue in federal court. This meant that African Americans were significantly denied legal rights and protections.
Second, the Court decided that Congress did not have the power to regulate slavery in the territories. This ruling directly contradicted prior congressional acts, such as the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had aimed to balance free and slave states. By denying Congress the ability to regulate slavery in the territories, the Court effectively nullified legislative attempts to limit the expansion of slavery.
This decision amplified sectional tensions by inflaming the ongoing debate between the North and South over slavery. The South saw the ruling as a vindication of its pro-slavery stance and an affirmation of the constitutional protection for slavery. The North, on the other hand, viewed the decision as an affront to their anti-slavery sentiment and an assault on the principles of equality and justice.
Ultimately, the Dred Scott decision deepened the divide between the North and the South, fueling sectionalism and setting the stage for the intensification of conflict over the expansion of slavery. It contributed to the eruption of the Civil War, which further underscored and solidified the division between the two regions.