Conflicts Between Liberty & Equality in Pre-Civil War America

After the bill was passed, pro-slavery and anti-slavery supporters rushed in to settle in Kansas to affect the outcome of the first election. Pro-slavery settlers won the election, but were charged with fraud by anti-slavery settlers. The anti-slavery settlers held another election, but the pro-slavery settlers refused to vote. This resulted in two opposing legislatures within the Kansas territory. The opposition created violence between the two groups, causing many bloody battles that greatly increased the death rate, giving Kansas the nickname “Bleeding Kansas”. President Pierce, supporting pro-slavery, sent in Federal troops to stop the violence and disperse the anti-slavery legislature. Another election was held and pro-slavery supporters won. They were again charged with election fraud. As a result, Congress did not recognize the constitution the pro-slavery settlers adopted, and Kansas wasn’t allowed to become a state. Eventually,

In March 5,1857, after deliberating for several months, Chief Justice Roger Taney issued the ruling. The Court determined, by a majority of seven to two, that Dred Scott and his family were still slaves. It stated that even if, the Scotts had traveled into free territory, moving back to St.Louis had made them slaves once more. However, The Court decided to go further and addressed other issues regarding slavery and blacks. On citizenship, the Court decided no black could ever be a citizen, in Taney's own words "slaves nor their descendants, whether... free or not, were then acknowledged as part of the people [citizens]"# According to this, Scott was only property , therefore he did not have the right to file suit, and as a result was never free. The Court also decided to rule the

“In 1847, Dred Scott first went to trial to sue for his freedom, (Dred Scott’s fight for freedom).” “While the immediate issue in this case was Dred Scott’s status, the court also had the opportunity to rule on the question of slavery in the territories, (Appleby et all, 446-447).” One of the main issues of this case was that the justices were trying to settle a political problem rather than being completely fair in their decisions. Dred lost the first trial but was granted a second trial. The next year the Missouri Supreme Court decided that the case should be retried, (Dred Scott’s fight for freedom). In 1850, the Circuit Court of St. Louis County

The Act caused even more controversy. Dred Scott was a slave in a slave state, but then moved to a free state, so he thought that he was now a free person. The court decided he was not a free person because he was still property. In addition, the Missouri and Main became a free state. This was named the Missouri Compromise. It stated that no more states north of the new boundary could become a slave state, which angered some who needed slaves to run their farms. (Wise...)

　　　　Slavery was at the root of the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott sued his master to obtain freedom for himself and his family. His argument was that he had lived in a territory where slavery was illegal; therefore he should be considered a free man. Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia around 1800. Scott and his family were slaves owned by Peter Blow and his family. He moved to St. Louis with them in 1830 and was sold to John Emerson, a military doctor. They went to Illinois and the Wisconsin territory where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Dred Scott married and had two

Although the Dred Scott case broke the Missouri Compromise which placed restrictions on slavery in some U.S. territories. This case became a rallying point for the abolitionists leading to the election of Abraham Lincoln. The Dred Scott case eventually got people to stop protesting slavery, but the Court had broken the Missouri Compromise and people in the North were outraged. The Dred Scott decision is important because although it was intended to settle the question of slavery, it adopted a strong view and let

To start off, in the 1857 case Dred Scott V Sanford rights were violated. In the case Dred Scott vs Sanford, Dred Scott was a slave that was freed by his master, but then was forced to go back to a slave state. Dred Scott thought he deserved to be free. Dred Scott wanted to sue. He was already freed by his master so he shouldn't have had to go back to slave state. Dred Scott's master guarantee him of his freedom, because of that, when it was taken away Dred Scott didn't agree with that resolution and wanted him and his wife to be free. Due to that, the case was taken to court, the judge found that once Dred Scott was freed he was to remain free. (Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sanford)

Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom. He said that because he was a slave taken to a free state, even though he was brought back to a slave state, made him free. The court ruled that a free or enslaved African American was not a U.S. citizen and they could not sue in federal court. Also, they ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. Abolitionists were not happy at the court’s decision.

As stated above, the rapid spread of abolitionists in the northern states and the pro-slavery activism in the southern states, the United States of America was soon torn apart. In the year of 1820, an act known as the Missouri Compromise was passed, and slavery was banned from all newly created western territories. This passing caused a lot of tension in the southern states because they believed it was going to eventually diminish their industrial success. A few decades later in 1857, the United States Supreme Court made a new legal principle known as the Dred Scott Decision, which stated that African slaves (in the slave

Sanford was another hot political issue. Dred Scott and his wife were taken to a free state by their master, and the ruling on this case stated that Scott was still legally bound to his master and must remain a slave. This decision was based on three main factors. The first factor was that Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in Federal court. The second factor was that it was unconstitutional for Congress to outlaw slavery in a territory. The last factor stated that although Scott and his family were heading in and out of Free states, it did not affect their standing as slaves.

In 1846, a slave living in Missouri named Dred Scott, sued for his freedom on the basis that he had lived for a total of seven years in territories that were closed to slavery. Scott's owner had been an army doctor named John Emerson. Emerson's position had required him to move several times in a relatively short amount of time. During his time with Emerson, Scott had lived in the state of Illinois, which was

There had been an issue about slavery each time a state wanted to join the union. This compromise will ease tensions but was repealed in 1854, with the Kansas-Nebraska Act and was declared unconstitutional by the Dred Scott decision in 1857. In "The Dread Scott case", A black man spent time in North where slavery was abolished. His master died, so he thought he was free. But the justice said he was still a slave because he used to be a slave.

When passed, it implimented popular sovereignty, which ignored the Missouri Compromise. This prompted an outbreak of violence between pro-slavery and antislavery residents of the Kansas Territory known as “Bleeding Kansas.” Soon after, the Republican Party emerged, consisting of former Whigs, Know-Nothings, and some northern Democrats. Proslavery residents of Kansas drafted the Lecompton Constitution in 1857, which fought to persueade free-staters to elect a new territorial legislature. President Buchanan was supportive, but Congress shot it down. Political controversies continued with the Dred Scott Decision in 1857. Scott, a slave who moved North with his master, argued he deserved to be a free citizen after his owner died. The Court ruled he nor any other slave could be considered a citizen, as they were less than human.

Liberty and equality has always been a controversial issue in America. Based on the readings, people during the American Revolution had a different view on what liberty and equality meant to them, then what it means to most people in modern society. Liberty is defined as “the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views” (Dictionary.com). Today’s definition of equality is the “state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities” (Dictionary.com). In the times of the American revolution the focus of liberty and equality only affected white men. In modern day and age, the focus is for all mankind to have the same rights, and people are no longer viewed as property. Throughout time since the American Revolution, the ideas of what liberty and equality mean has been influenced and evolved as the opinions and citizens within society have changed.

     One of the final cause of the Civil was involved a slave named Dred Scott. Dred Scott was an enslaved person owned by John Emerson. Emerson took Dred Scott from Missouri to Illinois, a free state. They then moved back to Missouri, which was a slave state under the Missouri Compromise. In 1857 Dred Scott sued the state of Missouri on the claim that by living in a free state, he was free and had earned his freedom. Scott won that case, but the ruling was later overturn by the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the compromises including the Missouri Compromise were unconstitutional and that African Americans were not United State citizens and could not be a citizen. Slaves were considered property and had no rights.