1.Dred Scott was the plaintiff (the person who sued the defendant) in this case. Why did he sue the Emersons and John Sanford? What was his goal?
2.Summarize the basic argument that Scott's lawyers used to support his case. Did Dred Scott have reason to believe that he would win his case?
3.Why was a new case brought to the federal court system? What circumstances made the case a federal question?
4.How do you think the bitter political climate of the day affected Dred Scott's chances of winning his case?

its b wells tried to fight lynching in the south by

in 1859, brown and 21 of his followers attacked and occupied the federal arsenal in harper's ferry. their goal was to capture supplies and use them to arm a slave rebellion. brown was captured during the raid and later hanged, but not before becoming an anti-slavery icon. abolitionist and insurrectionist

explanation:

1(a) traditional methods of production are upheld.

2(d) to convert private property to state-owned property

3b) feudalism

5(a) question

6(c) to preserve the past

7(d) the opportunity to make a profit

8(b) get paid by the government

could not do 4 sorry. . hope this

where is the i can't with a multiple choice question without the choices