Question

why was the missouri compromise declared unconstitutional in the dred scott case?
a. it gave rights to african americans.

b. it allowed slavery in the free states.

c. it denied enslavers the right to their property without due process.

d. option d content not fully visible from the provided image

Explanation:

In the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because it denied enslavers the right to their "property" (enslaved people) without due process when it prohibited slavery in certain territories. The option "It denied enslavers the right to their property without due process" aligns with this legal reasoning about the Fifth Amendment's due - process clause and the status of enslaved people as property in the eyes of the court at that time. The other options are incorrect: the Missouri Compromise did not give rights to African Americans, it restricted slavery in free states (opposite of "allowed slavery in free states"), and the core issue was about property rights of enslavers, not the other options.

Answer:

It denied enslavers the right to their property without due process.