Individuals That Contributed To The Civil War Essay

The Scott v. Sanford starts with Harriet and Dred Scott, Dred was a long-term slave, owned by Dr. John Emerson. Dred moved with Emerson army post to army post, due to Emerson was an army surgeon. Dred moved with him over the course of eleven years. In the year 1857, Emerson dies and Dred is left in a free-territory. Dred then went to a local court and sued for his freedom. On March 6th, Chief Justice Robert B. Tany spoke the majority opinion. The US Congress ruled that slaves were not citizens and they could not receive protection from the Federal Government or the Federal Courts (Supreme Court Archives). Also, that Congress had no authority to ban slavery from a federal territory. This created major problems and changes in the United States (Kelly, 2014).

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest wars in American history. So many lives were lost in battle in this war any many were severely harmed. Many believe that the war was fought over the expansion of slavery to the West. This is true, however, it is not the only reason the Civil War took place. Missouri wanted to enter as a slave state and many people were worried that this was going to alter the balance of the Senate (“Political Issues Leading to Civil War”, 2015). The court decision in the Dred Scott case caused an up-roar in the states and contributed to the reasoning behind the Civil War. It was said that “once you’re a slave, you are property, and you have no rights”

Dred Scott was a slave that lived in St. Louis who sued in a Missouri state court to prove that he and his family were entitled to their freedom. Scott then took his case to the United States Supreme Court, which would ultimately lead to the Civil War. First of all, Scott was born into slavery in Virginia and then moved to Missouri with his slave master in 1830. Scott’s master died a few years after, so Scott was bought from a man that lived in Illinois, which at the time was declared a free state. Scott did not try to proclaim his freedom then, nor in Wisconsin which also was a free state. He did not try again for his freedom. It was not until Scott’s slave owner died, and Dr. Emerson’s wife did not want to sell Scott, that Scott finally made a push for his freedom and sued for it.

After thirty years, in 1857, the compromise was no longer enforced. The Supreme Court ruled that the congress had no power to prohibit slavery in territories, which led to the Dred Scott case. The case ended up in the Supreme courts by Dred Scott, a slave from free state, that returned to Missouri claiming that he has independence. The court spoke out that no black slave could claim as a U.S citizen. Years later his case was resolved and Dred has won his battles on his beliefs. The case led to Abraham Lincoln’s election and influenced

The United States’ plunge into civil war was proceeded by three significant events: first, was the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, and the election of 1860 (Schultz, 2014). Dred Scott was a slave that sued his master for his freedom on the basis that he had resided in a free state for a period of time. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the ban on slavery was unconstitutional in the United States, which led the Northern states to believe that the Southern states held excessive power at the utmost levels of government. Additionally, some influential Northerner’s approval of John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry caused Southerner’s to fear that the North desired to destroy their way of life. Finally, President Lincoln’s election in 1860 without winning any Southern states proved their fear that their voice in national politics was fading, as was their way of life.

Dred Scott was a Missouri slave who sued for his freedom on territory that outlawed slavery. This case was known as The Dred Scott vs. Stanford. Dred Scott was taken from the slave state, Missouri, to Illinois, which was a free state. Slavery was outlawed in Illinois because of the Missouri Compromise. In 1846, When Scott’s master, Dr. John Emerson died, Scott sued Ms. Emerson for freedom for himself and his family. On March 6, 1857,The Supreme Court denied Scott his freedom. Authors, Brands, Breem, Williams, and Gross (2009) found that Chief Justice Rodger B. Taney argued, “ No African American-slave or free could be a citizen of the United States” (The Dredd Scott Case pg. 323). According to The Dred Scott Decision Ushistory.org (2008) The court ruled; the Missouri Compromise was considered unconstitutional, the congress had no power to prohibit slavery, and that because Scott was black, he would not be considered a citizen in the United state, therefore, he could not bring suit (The Dred Scott Decision Ushistory.org, 2008, para. 2). The ruling was unfair due to five out of the six judges were proslavery

Dred Scott was a slave from Missouri, who was once owned by an army surgeon who took Scott along with him to Illinois and Wisconsin, where those states were free and any slave who came into that land, would become free. Once the surgeon had died, Scott sued his master’s widow for freedom since he was a resident which liberated him from slavery and that claim was supported by Missouri law and declared him free. John Sanford, the brother of the surgeon’s widow claimed ownership of Scott and appealed to the state supreme court, which in case reversed the earlier decision made. When Scott appealed against this to the federal courts, Sanford’s lawyers had claimed that he could not sue because Scott was not a citizen of the United States. According to The Unfinished Nation, the Supreme court had to make a decision, “The Supreme Court was so divided that it was unable to issue a single ruling on the case. The thrust of the various rulings, however, was a stunning defeat for the antislavery movement.” Both political parties were advocating for their side to be included in the ruling, although, neither of parties cared about the actual issue at hand but rather cared of the politics of the situation at large. According to The Unfinished Nation, the ruling eventually sided with the democrats leading to, “Republicans threatened that when they won control of the

Since 1776, independent nation of the United States encountered countless of political, economical, as well as territorial obstacles. The Civil War in 1861 ranked highest among the numerous historical turns in America. Although, many debates and disputes foreshadowed this tragedy of internal split, the issue of slavery proved to be one of the major cause of the war. Despite the fact that the Kansas-Nebraska Act has already passed, the case of Dred Scott drifted the nation even further toward disunion. On March 6, 1857, this simple case turned into a complex political issue, arguing the rights of the black slaves. At the same time, Dred Scott case resulted in an unexpected decision over the territorial slavery issue in the United States.

The Civil War was caused by a compilation of many significant events. One reason was the Abolitionist Movement. This was the movement to help end slavery in the South. While many Northerners were against slavery, most white Southerners were proponents of slavery, and even went as far as to use the Bible to try and justify the act. Among the advocates of the Abolitionist Movement were John Brown, who decided to protest with violence, Harriet Beecher Stowe, who elected to protest peaceably through her writing, and the supporters of Dred Scott, a man who was thought by many to be free of slavery.

When Dred Scott decided to gives out a serious shock to the antislavery rules that hoped to keep slavery out of the Northern territories, particularly to Senator Stephen A. Douglas 's doctrine of popular sovereignty, and also acknowledged that no slave, nor offspring of a slave, could be a US citizen. As a noncitizen, the court stated, Scott did not have any rights at all; he could not sue anyone in a federal court so he just remained a slaved. So that decision had a major outcome in spreading the political and community gap between the North and the South, and conveyed the nation closer to the brink of civil war. The South celebrated, and therefore they felt a relief and justification, for at last the "Southern opinion upon the subject of

The legacy of the Civil War included, changes in the institution of slavery, changes to the role and powers of the federal government, and economic changes. Before the Civil War the United States was divided on the issue of slavery. Some states permitted, even encouraged, slavery. While others outlawed it completely. This difference was due to a difference in the economic structure of the states. The Northern states that had outlawed slavery didn’t rely on them for finance. The North was dependent on manufacturing, which allowed them the opportunity to hire workers. The South relied on farming, which encouraged slavery. Furthermore, Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin promoted slavery even more. The polar opposite views on slavery eventually caused the Civil War. Secession of eleven Southern states caused the The Civil War. Their secession was due to Abraham Lincoln’s election, even though he had not appeared on their ballots. Why hadn’t he appeared on their ballots? It was because he thought that slavery was immoral and he was on the “other” political party. The one that the South opposed. The Republican party. At the end of the war, Lincoln passed the 13th amendment,

The main rift between the North and South revolved around slavery. Throughout the early and mid 19th century, more people (especially in the north) were comprehending the brutality of slavery in the U.S. Open objections to slavery increased, and sometimes even turned violent. Figures such as William Lloyd Garrison (founded an abolitionist newspaper), Frederick Douglass (renowned abolitionist speaker and author), and Harriet Tubman (helped slaves escape the South via the Underground Railroad) were all great leaders and symbols in the abolitionist movement. Furthermore, events such as the Dred Scott case spotlighted the injustice of how blacks were treated as property rather than human beings. This case actually opened up a more fervent discussion of slavery and in the end gave more recognition to the abolitionist movement. As the movement progressed and gained popularity, the strain with the South grew alongside it. In this sense, the Civil War was essentially inevitable. Another social issue that led to the civil war was a lack of unity. Many citizens did not yet feel as if they were part of a union, rather they felt part of one individual state. This mentality made it easier for southern states to consider secession from the

The Dred Scott Decision became the next problem that led to the Civil war. Dred Scott was a black slave that lived for 5 years in Illinois with his master. He sued for his freedom based on his prolonged stay on free soil. The Supreme Court heard the case and ruled that since Dred Scott was a black slave and was equated to property. Therefore, he was not a citizen and not allowed to sue. The Court took the ruling further saying that since a slave was property; they could be taken into any territory and be held there under the laws of slavery. The ruling was based on the Fifth Amendment which denied Congress the right to strip people of their property without due process of law. Southerners were pleased with the victory in the case, but abolitionists were horrified at the idea that slavery could legally spread anywhere in the country. The fear of this continued to grow in the North and caused much more friction between the North and South as a result.

The majority of speculations regarding the causes of the American Civil War are in some relation to slavery. While slavery was a factor in the disagreements that led to the Civil War, it was not the solitary or primary cause. There were three other, larger causes that contributed more directly to the beginning of the secession of the southern states and, eventually, the start of the war. Those three causes included economic and social divergence amongst the North and South, state versus national rights, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case. Each of these causes involved slavery in some way, but were not exclusively based upon slavery.

     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.