"Shocks, Throes, and Convulsions"
"Slavery is founded on the selfishness of man's nature--opposition to it on his love of justice. These principles are in eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely as slavery extension brings them, shocks and throes and convulsions must ceaselessly follow." (Abraham Lincoln)[1]
America in 1857 was "A Nation on the Brink" as defined by Kenneth Stampp in his book with the same title. Relationships between the Northern and Southern states had been strained for decades, but during the 1840s and especially the 1850s, the situation exploded. Pro-slavery and antislavery forces clashed frequently and fatally in "Bleeding Kansas," while the presidential election of 1856 turned ugly when southern states threatened secession if a candidate from the antislavery Republican party won. Into this charged atmosphere stepped a black slave from Missouri named Dred Scott.
During the 1850s in the United States, Southern support of slavery and Northern opposition to it collided more violently than ever over the case of Dred Scott, a black slave from Missouri who claimed his freedom on the basis of seven years of residence in a free state and a free territory. When the predominately pro-slavery Supreme Court of the United States heard Scott's case and declared that not only was he still a slave but that the main law guaranteeing that slavery would not enter the new Midwestern territories of the United States was unconstitutional, it sent America into convulsions. The turmoil would end only after a long and bloody civil war fought primarily over the issue of slavery and its extension into America's unorganized territories. The Supreme Court's ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford helped hasten the arrival of the American Civil War, primarily by further polarizing the already tense relations between Northerners and Southerners.
Scott had spent extended periods of time with his owner, Dr. John Emerson, in Fort Armstrong, Illinois, Fort Snelling, Wisconsin Territory, Fort Jessup, Louisiana, and in St. Louis. During his travels, Scott lived for a total of seven years in areas closed to slavery; Illinois was a free state and the Missouri Compromise of 1820 had closed the Wisconsin Territory to slavery. When Scott's decade-long fight for freedom began on April 6, 1846, he lived in St...
... middle of paper ...
...ss.
Clearly Scott v. Sandford was not an easily forgotten case. That it still raised such strong emotions well into the Civil War shows that it helped bring on the war by hardening the positions of each side to the point where both were willing to fight over the issue of slavery. The North realized that if it did not act swiftly, the Southern states might take the precedent of the Scott case as a justification for expanding slavery into new territories and free states alike. The South recognized the threat of the Republican party and knew that the party had gained a considerable amount of support as a result of the Northern paranoia in the aftermath of the decision. In the years following the case, Americans realized that these two mindsets, both quick to defend their side, both distrustful of the other side, could not coexist in the same nation. The country realized, in Abraham Lincoln's words, that " house divided against itself cannot stand.' . . . This government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free" [9]. Scott's case left America in "shocks and throes and convulsions" that only the complete eradication of slavery through war could cure.
and sold. His new master then moved to Illinois (a free state) for a while but soon moved back to Missouri. Upon his master's death, Scott claimed that since he had resided in a free state, he was consequentially a free man. The case eventually made it to the Supreme Court.
“Dred Scott was an enslaved African American”, (Appleby 446-447). He was born into slavery in 1799. His parents were slaves of Peter Blow, who lived in Virginia. Since his parents were slaves, Dred was a slave since the time of his birth. In 1830, the Blow family moved to St. Louis, Missouri and brought Dred with them. A couple years later he was sold to Dr. John Emerson, an army doctor who at the time was stationed in St. Louis. Dr John Emerson, along with Dred, was transferred in 1834 to Rock Island, Illinois (a Free State) and then in 1836 to the military outpost in the Upper Louisiana Territory. John was stationed at each military base for a couple of years. While in the Upper Louisiana Territory, Dred met Harriet Robison who was owned by Major Taliaferro. John bought Harri...
It should be noted that the Declaration of Independence made it clear that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Although this progressive view was shared by many of the members of the Constitutional Convention, it is clear that the original text of the American Constitution is rather pro-slavery and up to a certain point protects the slave-owners. It is of utmost importance to note that the words slavery/slave are not used in the text of the Constitution.
Leading up to Civil War many events transpired that created a disconnect between Americans within the United States. The South believed that slave labor boosted the profitability and sustainability of their economy by allowing for cheap labor that lasted for a long time, while the slaves could also reproduce, creating more cheap labor to come. The North, however, disagreed with the South; they did not want slaves to take American jobs and they also promoted American labor. The North and South each tried to sway the other’s position on the topic of slave labor, but neither would budge. As time passed, certain events lead to the decline of slavery. The south recognized this and threatened to secede from the Union, adding to the disconnect between the two. Secession is defined as: to break away from; but for the South it was leverage to either help them attain what they desired or they could leave the union. Admitting free states, disallowing slavery to expand, and President Lincoln’s election were significant factors that lead to the secession of the southern states in 1860 and 1861.
“The right to have a slave implies the right in some one to make a slave; that right must be equal and mutual, and this would resolve society into a state of perpetual war.” Senator William Steward, an anti-slavery supporter, issued this claim in his “There is a Higher Law than the Constitution” speech. Steward, like all abolitionist, viewed all of man as equals. This equality came from the “higher law” that is the Bible. Since all men were created by God then all men were equals in God’s eyes. Abolitionist believed that whites had no more right to make a slave out of a African American than the African American had to make a slave out of a white man.
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.
Politics in America from 1846 to 1861 have been remembered mainly for being strongly influenced by slavery. It was the hot topic of the time. Abolitionism was on the rise while Americans who were proslavery stood by their beliefs. With the compromise of 1850 declaring Free states, the division of the north and south, incidents such as bleeding Kansas, the Dred Scott case, and the election of 1860, it was clear that American Politics were all about slavery.
Dred Scott was a slave. His master was an army surgeon who was based in Missouri. In the early 1830's and 1840's his master and him traveled to Illinois and the Wisconsin territory. It was in 1846 that Scott sued his master's widow for freedom. His argument was that the state of ...
Abraham Lincoln’s original views on slavery were formed through the way he was raised and the American customs of the period. Throughout Lincoln’s influential years, slavery was a recognized and a legal institution in the United States of America. Even though Lincoln began his career by declaring that he was “anti-slavery,” he was not likely to agree to instant emancipation. However, although Lincoln did not begin as a radical anti-slavery Republican, he eventually issued his Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all slaves and in his last speech, even recommended extending voting to blacks. Although Lincoln’s feeling about blacks and slavery was quite constant over time, the evidence found between his debate with Stephen A. Douglas and his Gettysburg Address, proves that his political position and actions towards slavery have changed profoundly.
The reason why Dred Scott decided to pursue his freedom is unknown, but there are a couple theories. For example, it is believed that “most likely, Scott decided to bring his case to court after years of [talks] with other slaves that had done the same.” (Herda, 30) This shows that, Scott was not an ignorant, uninformed man and had reason to believe he could obtain freedom for himself and his family. This also shows that he took a long look at the issue before making the decision to sue for his freedom. In addition, he may have also been convinced by “several talks with his old friends, the Blows, who were sympathetic to his troubles.” (Herda, 30) This shows that his previous owners, turned friends, the Blows, may have been a major influence; being Scott’s staunch supporters throughout his life. This also shows that the Blows encouragement, on top of other slave’s actions, may have been what finally convinced Scott to pursue the suit for his freedom. In conclusion, several factors convinced Scott to sue for his freedom including the opinion of his previous owners, the Blows. 188
Dred Scott was born as a slave in Virginia. As a young man he was taken to Missouri, where he was later sold to Dr. John Emerson. A military surgeon, Dr. John Emerson moved Scott a US Army Post in the free state of Illinois. Several years later Dr. Emerson moved once again, but this time to the Wisconsin Territory. As part of the massive Louisiana Purchase the Wisconsin Territory under the Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery. While in the Wisconsin Territory and also later in St. Louis the Emersons started to rent the Scotts out as servants. Under several state and federal laws this was an illegal act in direct violation of the Missouri Compromise, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Wisconsin Enabling Act. Scott bounced around from several military posts including one in Louisiana before ending up again in St. Louis, Missouri. After the death of Dr. Emerson, ownership of the Scotts reverted to his wife. Through out 1846 Scott tried several times to by the freedom for him and his family. After several failed attempts he resorted to the legal r...
Douglass's narrative is, on one surface, intended to show the barbarity and injustice of slavery. However, the underlying argument is that freedom is not simply attained through a physical escape from forced labor, but through a mental liberation from the attitude created by Southern slavery. The slaves of the South were psychologically oppressed by the slaveholders' disrespect for a slave’s family and for their education, as well as by the slaves' acceptance of their own subordination. Additionally, the slaveholders were trapped by a mentality that allowed them to justify behavior towards human beings that would normally not be acceptable. In this manner, both slaveholder and slave are corrupted by slavery.
Slavery was the core of the North and South’s conflict. Slavery has existed in the New World since the seventeenth century prior to it being exclusive to race. During those times there were few social and political concerns about slavery. Initially, slaves were considered indentured servants who will eventually be set free after paying their debt(s) to the owner. In some cases, the owners were African with white servants. However, over time the slavery became exclusive to Africans and was no limited to a specific timeframe, but life. In addition, the treatment of slaves worsens from the Atlantic Slave trade to th...
...ers mobilized in 1860 behind moderate Abraham Lincoln because he was most likely to carry the doubtful western states. In 1857, the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision ended the Congressional compromise for Popular Sovereignty in Kansas. According to the court, slavery in the territories was a property right of any settler, regardless of the majority there. Chief Justice Taney's decision said that slaves were, "...so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." The decision overturned the Missouri Compromise, which banned slavery in territory north of the 36°30' parallel.
Slavery has been a part of human practices for centuries and dates back to the world’s ancient civilizations. In order for us to recognize modern day slavery we must take a look and understand slavery in the American south before the 1860’s, also known as antebellum slavery. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary defines a slave as, “a man who is by law deprived of his liberty for life, and becomes the property of another” (B.J.R, pg. 479). In the period of antebellum slavery, African Americans were enslaved on small farms, large plantations, in cities and towns, homes, out on fields, industries and transportation. By law, slaves were the perso...