Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumSectional Compromises and Legislative Crises

Read the following excerpt from the Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857):

"Now... the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guarantied to the citizens of the United States, in every State that might choose it, for twenty years. And the Government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time, if the slave escapes from his owner. ... And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property, or which excludes property of that description from the territory of the United States."

Which of the following was a direct historical consequence of the ruling excerpted above?

  1. It effectively invalidated previous sectional agreements, such as the Missouri Compromise, by denying Congress the power to restrict slavery in the territories.Answer
  2. B
    It reinforced the concept of popular sovereignty by granting territorial legislatures the ultimate power to ban or permit slavery.
  3. C
    It applied the principle of popular sovereignty at the federal level, giving the executive branch the authority to determine the status of slavery in new territories.
  4. D
    It ended the sectional crisis by establishing that only the federal government could exercise popular sovereignty to regulate slave property in the West.

Answer

The ruling effectively invalidated previous sectional agreements, such as the Missouri Compromise, by denying Congress the power to restrict slavery in the territories.
The correct answer is correct because the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that slaves were property protected by the Fifth Amendment, meaning Congress lacked the power to ban slavery in federal territories. This decision officially declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, removing legislative barriers to the expansion of slavery and severely intensifying sectional tensions.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the provided historical document excerpt.
The excerpt shows Chief Justice Taney arguing that the Constitution explicitly protects property rights in slaves and that Congress has no power to exclude slave property from United States territories.
Understanding the core legal argument of the Dred Scott decision is necessary to determine its historical effects.
2
Evaluate the impact of this constitutional interpretation on existing laws and agreements.
By declaring that Congress has no power to exclude slavery from territories, the Supreme Court struck down the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (which had banned slavery north of the 36°30' parallel).
Connecting the ruling to the legislative context of Period 5 identifies the direct consequences of the decision.
3
Compare the analyzed consequence with the given options to find the correct statement.
The statement about invalidating previous sectional agreements by denying Congress the power to restrict slavery in the territories matches the analysis.
This confirms the correct option while eliminating choices based on misconceptions.

Key Concept

The Dred Scott decision invalidated previous sectional compromises by ruling that Congress could not prohibit slavery in federal territories, thereby escalating the sectional crisis.
Rate this question

Topics

Sectional Compromises and Legislative Crises

More questions from this topic