The Dred Scott Case Against Slavery

The presidential election of 1860 set the stage for the American Civil war. By 1860, the nation had been divided mostly up to that point regarding questions of states’ rights and slavery in the territories. Southerners were outraged over the plan by abolitionist, John Brown, to start a slave rebellion at Harper Ferry, Virginia. This event garnered headlines all over the nation in newspapers and magazines. On the other hand, the Northern Republic seemed equally anger by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Dred Scott v. Stanford, which declared free soil unconstitutional. The Northern Democrats, however, struggled to persuade the Americans that their policy of popular sovereignty still made since.

According to the Declaration of Independence, signed in 1776, "[...] all men are created equal, [and] they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." One would then expect that every man, would be entitled to their freedom, and it was true, for all white men. African-Americans, however, faced a very different reality. They were still forced into slavery, they were deprived of those rights that all men were meant to have. While the north states opposed slavery, it was permitted in the south, and as the slavery issue raged on, one man would stand to fight for his freedom. His case, would go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court's decision would

　　　　The Dred Scott decision was significant because it was the first time since Marbury v. Madison that the Supreme Court said an act of congress was unconstitutional. It said the congress had no power to ban slavery in the federal territories; therefore, the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. By doing this, the Court also said people in the territories had no right to decide whether their state should be a free or a slave state. This was known as popular sovereignty. The decision also hurt the new Republican Party which was trying to stop the spread of slavery. Further, this decision continued the conflict over slavery between the north and south and

Correspondingly, there was the quarrel over state versus federal rights. States felt they didn’t have any say if they disliked a federal law. So when all these compromises came about concerning slavery in the West, people wanted to be able to nullify federal laws. To nullify is to cancel, and in this case to cancel a federal law. People like John C. Calhoun fought for this right along with many others. However, the federal government felt this was not necessary, therefore, some states threatened to secede.

Dred Scott was a man that grew up in the tough times of slavery. Scott was born around the year 1800 and died in 1858. As a young man and all the way up to his death he tried several times to gain freedom for his family and himself through the Missouri court system, but failed. Scott then took his case to a court in Missouri, where he won only to have the final decision revoked by the Supreme Court (“Dred Scott Biography”). The notorious outcome of Dred Scott v. Sandford case embarked the start of the Civil War in the United States against the northern states and the southern states.

Cotton was the king of the South. It was bringing in large amounts of money as the textile industry in the North grew. Slavery was vital to the economic well-being of the South, and when the North began to question the “peculiar institution” of the South the wall of civility between the two sectionalized areas began to crumble. Due to the growing issue of slavery in the 1850s, the United States of America was in a state of total disarray and turmoil. The tension that had always existed between the North and South over the matter of slavery was no longer ignorable. As the United States expanded to the West, the status of slavery in the new states erupted in a violence that could no longer be controlled by sectionalism. The peace treaties that had worked in the past became Band-Aids over stab wounds. Southern states began to leave the United States of America to form the Confederate States of America and war was declared as the South fired onto the forts of the North. The Civil War was caused directly by the issue of slavery; the fugitive slave act in the Compromise of 1850, Dred Scott v. Sandford, and Bleeding Kansas prove that slavery was the key factor in the eruption of the nation.

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

To what extent did the Dred Scott Case and the Fugitive slave act and laws further divide the United States? Slavery has been an obstacle to America since the beginning of America’s independence. “… this incomplete revolution did produce, of course, was a fairly clear-cut division of the new nation into slaveholding and non-slaveholding states – all at the very same time when the foundations of a national government were being laid” . It was also geography and economic differences that continue to divide the North and South. The most important issue was slavery. The issue of slavery was pointed out many times by James Madison. The Dred Scott case presented three issues that have been debated throughout the country. The issues are 1. The citizenship of African Americans. “2. Status of slaves who had been held on free soil; and 3. The constitutionality of federal legislation prohibiting slavery in territories. ”

“In a government where sectional interests and feelings may come into conflict, the sole security for permanence and peace is to be found in a Constitution whose provisions are inviolable” (Document B). But, what if the answer is not found in the Constitution? At this time there was an increasing sectional conflict between the North and the South. The problems arose mainly from the issue of slavery, and came largely after the Mexican war. Although the issue of slavery had never been fully resolved, it became a very heated subject during the 1850’s. The Constitution never took a clear stand on the issue, and the people began to see it more as source of sectional discord and tension and they ultimately began to see it as a

In the mid-1800's, many events occurred that increased sectional tension between the Northern and Southern states of the Union. These tensions ultimately resulted in the outbreak of civil war. One thing in particular that is considered to be a source of sectional discord is the U.S. Constitution. However the Constitution itself was not a source of sectional tension that caused the failure of the Union. The failure erupted generally from the issue of slavery. combination of the people in general and the differences in economic styles that lead to the downfall. Poor political decisions such as the Kansas Nebraska Act, lead to bad decisions which worsened the tensions of the union. The economic differences ultimately lead to the Civil War

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

As Americans were moving west to fulfill the Manifest Destiny and conquering new territories, new boundaries for the Union were having to be shaped. With the northern states having officially abolished slavery since 1804, the argument over which territories would be free or not was now coming into play. The North and South have had differing opinions regarding slavery for over sixty years, but with the topic being kept out of most, if not all, political debates the dispute never seemed to come to a head. After the

Before the Civil War started, the North and the South argued on two main topics: slavery and state rights. In my opinion, it was because of slavery that state rights were argued. When Western territories were annexed from Mexico, they were admitted to the Union with the condition that that slavery be banned through the Wilmot Proviso (History.com). Because of this, slave states felt they were unfairly treated and outnumbered. The religious fervor of the Second Great Awakening also gave way to new ideology. Combined with the growing abolitionist sentiment, Northern states began taking action against Southern states. Because their rights as

Firstly, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 established popular sovereignty which allowed the states to choose whether they were free or slave-holding (Doc 3). This led to a period of time known as Bleeding Kansas when tensions between antislavery Republicans and pro-slavery Democrats increased as border ruffians tipped the votes and violence ensued. Also, the Caning of Charles Sumner, when Northern Congressman Sumner was beat by Southern Congressman Preston Brooks, further intensified tensions (Doc 4). The event led Northerners to view Southerners as uncivilized and violent, further increasing the gap between the North and the South. Thirdly, the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision ruled that slaves were not citizens and it allowed slavery virtually everywhere (Doc 5). This angered Northerners extremely because slavery was banned in the North and most Northerners supported antislavery. It also effectively repealed the Kansas-Nebraska Act that allowed states to choose being slave-holding or free, further angering the North. Altogether these events were the reason sectionalism became such a large issue; they significantly increased mutual dislike between the North and the South and fragmented the

A second issue that would spark tensions between the states that eventually would lead to war was the argument of states’ rights. The South would vigorously argue throughout the years before the war that the federal government’s authority was not above that of each individual state. (Mcpherson 25) This would mean the federal government was in violation of what the founding fathers created it to do. Many historians believe that this response was elicited by the fact that the Northern population was growing so quickly that it would soon have control of the federal government. Before 1860 many of the presidents that had been elected were pro-south or they were indeed from the south. (Mcpherson 35) With the north