How did the Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford 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.
The correct answer is C. The Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford increased sectionalism by denying Congress the power to regulate slavery in the territories. To understand why this decision increased sectionalism, we need to turn to the background of the case and its implications.
Dred Scott was an enslaved African American who sued for his freedom in 1857. The Supreme Court, in its decision, held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not considered American citizens and therefore did not have the right to bring a lawsuit in federal court. Additionally, the Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had prohibited slavery in certain territories, was unconstitutional. This decision effectively opened up the possibility that slavery could extend into these territories without any restriction from Congress.
By denying Congress the power to regulate slavery in the territories, the Supreme Court effectively removed one of the major instruments of compromise between the Northern and Southern states. The decision fueled the controversy and tension between the northern and southern regions over the expansion of slavery, leading to increased sectionalism.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford increased sectionalism by denying Congress the power to regulate slavery in the territories, which removed a potential source of compromise and heightened the divisions between the North and South.