Write a dissenting opinion for the dred scott decision. base your opinion on the facts in the case and rights guaranteed by the constitution of the united states

my opinion is that Dred scott decision was not far and that the slave should have been free it a good thing now this day we don't ave slaves

Explanation:

He should have been freed because he was considered a slave and one state and not the other, they should have had free slaves be nationaly recongized, instead of having them be a free slave in one state, they should be a free slave in all states, their status shouldn't change just because they are going into another state's territory.

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )

dont understand question can you makeit more better