Significance Of The Dred Scott Supreme Court Case

Manifest Destiny was the idea that it was America’s destiny to spread across the entire continent of North America. It was started by a group of expansionist called the Young American Movement and they were affiliated with the Democratic Party. By their idea, America was able to double its size and obtain new land from Mexico and Britain. However, this also caused pain to the Native Americans. In the end, America obtained new land, and its people achieved what they believed to be their God given right to expand and move west.

The term “Manifest Destiny” was, in part, an expression of a genuine ideal on the part of Americans. Yet it was also a justification to a push and to assume territory. The idea of Manifest Destiny was sparked by revolutionary American writings that encouraged appropriation of Canada. These writings rationalized that the Louisiana Purchase and the Untied States’ annexation of Texas ordained American complete domination of the North American continent. More broadly stated, Manifest destiny was a conviction that God intended North America to be under the control Americans. It’s an assertion of Anglo-Saxon supremacy.

Sandford). Chief Justice Taney, who happened to be a former slave owner, gave the majority opinion, 7-2, ruling against Dred Scott. He also said as a person of African descent, Dred Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in federal court. He added that Scott had never been free, since slaves were considered personal property (Dred Scott v. Sanford 63).

In the 19th century there was a popular doctrine or belief that the westward expansion of the United States not only could happen, but that it was destined to stretch from coast to coast. For awhile, the nation’s leaders were unable to resolve the divisive issue of slavery. This belief was called Manifest Destiny and it eventually provided a larger stage for the growing conflict over slavery in America.

Manifest Destiny is a term coined by John L. Sullivan in 1845 when talking about the annexation of Texas. He believed, along with other expansionists, that it’s inevitable that the US population would spread across North America because the land is given by Providence to the United States and that it’s natural that the land should be part of the country [Doc 1]. The idea of westward expansion and Manifest Destiny had positive and negative effects on the politics, society and the economics of the United States and

The term of Manifest destiny for the American people was to expand the land from sea to sea. This idea led them to gain more land to gain more liberty and freedom. Liberty of the nation was only liberty for the few. For the slaves, Native Americans, and the Free Blacks, they had little to no liberty with this idea of Manifest destiny. The nation was expanding and the American’s freedoms were expanding with it; the minorities were losing freedoms with the expanding of the rest of the nation.

Rachel vs. Walker Case which states that if a slave returns to Missouri and is not owned as Dred Scott did there

The Dred Scott Case had a huge impact on the United States as it is today. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments have called it the worst Supreme Court decision ever rendered and was later overturned. The Dred Scott Decision was a key case regarding the issue of slavery; the case started as a slave seeking his rightful freedom and mushroomed into a whole lot more. 65

The Manifest Destiny was a popular idea during the 1840s. Many people thought that the U.S. was destined to stretch from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean. As a part of the U.S. journey to achieve the Manifest Destiny, many people wanted the annexation of Texas and California. While, Mexico did not want to give Texas or California to the U.S.; over time. These territorial disagreements between the U.S. and Mexico started to become a stimulus for war. When the U.S. started to gain territory from Mexico, the issue of slavery became more frequent because lawmakers argued over whether the adopted territory allowed for slavery or not. Although the idea of the Manifest Destiny sparked a wave of patriotism among Americans, territorial expansion ultimately divided the U.S. between advocates and opponents of slavery. Americans not only wanted the land for economic purposes but they also felt that they needed to teach Mexico a lesson; these ideas were used as the basis of unity during the mid-19th century.

The landmark Supreme Court cases of Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas have had a tremendous effect on the struggle for equal rights in America. These marker cases have set the precedent for cases dealing with the issue of civil equality for the last 150 years.

In 1857 a slave named Dred Scott went to the Supreme court with a case. Dred originally lived in a slave state working as a slave, but his owner decided to take him into a free territory. His owner then died, and Scott wanted to sue for his freedom. The case took 11 years to reach the Supreme Court.

Manifest Destiny is a term that was first coined in 1845 by a journalist named John L. O’Sullivan, and was described as America’s destiny to expand, and that it was God’s will that America was to expand. According to Genovese, “The notion of westward expansion and domination of the white races struck a responsive chord in many Americans” (Genovese, 2017). The idea of expanding America’s territory was so popular that is was even later used in Congress to justify the claiming of Oregon’s territory. While the idea of expanding America seemed great to the Americans, it was not so great for those who were living on the land that the Americans would later claim. According to Hastedt, “The failure to assimilate and prosper was the fault of those receiving America’s goodness” (Hastedt, 2016). The Americans felt that they were superior to those whose lands they were trying to take, such as the Native Americans and Mexicans, and that they should be the ones to adopt American culture, even if they were there before the Americans claimed the land. The Americans even thought that those whose lands they were taking would be happy to convert to their way of living, as is stated by Hastedt, “The inherent superiority of American Values was sure to be recognized by those with whom they came in contact and would gladly be adopted” (Hastedt, 2016). This mindset would ultimately lead to the expansion of America, turning it into what we know today, but it would also ultimately result in conflict with those that the American’s were attempting to take the land from for the sake of expansion.

The Smith V. Allwright case was a big milestone in the Civil Rights Movement. It all started when a 39 year old black man named Lonnie Smith was denied the right to vote in Texas. In court the NAACP argued that the 14th and 15th amendments were being taken away from their client. The Supreme Court agreed. This victory lead to a immediate increase in African American resignations (Shay, Alison. "Remembering Smith V. Allwright").

Manifest Destiny was the idea that it was the United States’ destiny to take over all of North America from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Most of the public was in favor of territorial expansion, though some politicians felt it contradicted the constitution.

During the mid-nineteenth century, the rise of new territories increased the desire of Americans to expand into new territories in the western region. The term “Manifest Destiny” was first introduced by a magazine editor, John O’Sullivan, written in the United States Magazine and Democratic Review in 1845 to express the idea that the United States had a unique role in expanding the nation (OpenStax College 316,483). Manifest Destiny is widely defined as a justification of continental expansion as a calling to the American citizens to unify the land into the Union. I view Manifest Destiny as white males expressing their ideals of white supremacy unavoidably expanding new territories not yet defined by others (). With the new western land came the revival of the issue of slavery, should new territories become free or slave states? In several cases, the white settlers inflicted their morals about their policies and views of slavery in new territories acquired and bypassed all other principles of different races. They saw that their morals were above all and that they received a message from God to colonize the new land for themselves. Although Manifest Destiny posed conflict against Native Americans and slaves, new land and trade routes steered the United States to enter a realm of economic prosperity.