Select the results of the dred scott decision. dred scott remained a slave. the fugitive-slave law was declared unconstitutional. a slave was ruled to be a noncitizen with no right to sue in federal court. freeing a slave against a master's wishes was ruled to be a violation of due process of law. the missouri compromise was declared unconstitutional. proslavery people were alarmed. the u. s. constitution appeared to support slavery.

The results of the Dred Scott decision were:

-Dred Scott remained a slave.

-A slave was ruled to be a noncitizen with no right to sue in federal court.

-Freeing a slave against a master's wishes was ruled to be a violation of due process of law.

-The Missouri Compromise was declared unconstitutional.

Explanation:

Dred Scott was born a slave, owned by Peter Blow, who sold him to John Emerson in 1830. 6 years later Emerson, who served in the army, was sent to Fort Snelling, a fort in what is now the state of Minnesota. In that territory, slavery was prohibited under the provisions of the 1820 Missouri Compromise. Scott married the slave girl Harriet Robinson at Fort Snelling and in 1840 they moved with Emerson to St. Louis, Missouri.

In 1846, Emerson died and Scott became the property of his brother-in-law, John Sanford. Scott filed a lawsuit to obtain his freedom on the grounds that his period in Fort Snelling, where slavery was prohibited, meant that he would be free forever. Initially he was proved right in 1850 but on appeal the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that Scott was still owned by Sanford. An appeal to the Circuit Court of Missouri in 1854 also ended in Scott's disadvantage.

In the spring of 1856 the case went to the Supreme Court. The case lasted nearly a year before the court decided against Scott in a 7-2 decision. One of the arguments was that as a black person Scott was not a US citizen and therefore did not have the right to sue in Federal Courts and the supreme court in the state of Missouri, of which Scott was a citizen, decided that Scott was still a slave. Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney wrote a majority opinion that also rejected the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise and stated that the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution stipulated that an owner cannot be robbed of his property and that this also applied to slaves who resided in free states.  

during the ming dynasty

comparison is that they aren't nationalistic. a dif is that sds is government approved movemnet while yaf isnt \

it isnt that hard

explanation: