Sovereignty and Stephen A. Douglas

1321 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Mid 1800s views on slavery

On March 6, 1857 the controversial ruling of the Dred Scott vs. Stanford case was given causing dissention in the nation. The Supreme Court ruled over whether Dred Scott was a free slave and if slavery will expand to the new territories. The Court permitted slavery in the New Territories. It declared Scott was property, and therefore he was not free based on the Fifth Amendment, which says the right to property cannot be infringed upon. This meant he was not a free man even though he had returned from a free state. The Court decided that slaves were not American citizens. Meaning Scott or any other slave did not have the right to sue in federal court. This caused major issues between four major political groups: the Fire Eaters, the Republicans, the Abolitionists, and my political party, the Northern Democrats. We, as the Northern Democratic Party, believe that the problems in the area of slavery should be kept on the state level. We propose to keep slavery where it is already established, mainly in the south, and to not allow slavery in the Northern states, where it has already been set that slavery will not be instituted. In the new territories, the doctrine of popular sovereignty, which is the principle that that the authority of the government is created and sustained by the consent of the majority of its people, should be implemented. This way the majority in the state agrees upon how the slave policy is implemented. We believe the best solution at this point is to make a compromise that suits all sides so we can avoid dividing the union and risking a civil war. The Fire Eaters are fighting for the widespread of slavery everywhere in the United States. This idea is actually impossible to implement into the changing soc... ... middle of paper ... ...oo much tension has been built up to compromise again. We disagree. The Fire Eaters, Abolitionists, and Republicans can partly get what they want if they will allow compromise to be the answer. They should agree upon keeping slavery in the South, not allowing it to be implemented in the North, and deciding the title of a new territory on the bases of popular sovereignty. These provisions will allow the issue of slavery to be dealt with on a state level instead of a national one. They will help preserve our union, and help stray us away from the outbreak of a civil war. Literature Cited- 1."Military History Online - Stephen Douglas and Applied Popular Sovereignty." Military History Online - Stephen Douglas and Applied Popular Sovereignty. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2014. "Stephen A. Douglas." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 05 Dec. 2014. Web. 13 May 2014.

Show More
Related

  • Elijah Lovejoy

    1619 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Dred Scott decision involved two slaves, Dred Scott and his wife, who originated from one of the recognized slave states, Missouri, but they were relocated to settle in Wisconsin, a state where slavery was prohibited. In 1846, Scott filed a lawsuit and “sued for his freedom on the grounds that his residence in a free state and a free territory had made him free.” In 1854, Scott’s “case ultimately went to the Supreme Court.” By landing in the Supreme Court, the justices ruled seven to two against the Dred Scott and his wife for multiple reasons. One main reason that the court specified was that whether African Americans are enslaved or not, they were never recognized as citizens of the United States. Therefore, the justices believed that the case should not have been heard or discussed in the Supreme Court to begin with. The second reason was that regardless of any African American being transferred to a free state, does not necessarily change their social status. Thirdly, the Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, a compromise that outlawed slavery north of the 36˚30’ latitude line, is unconstitutional because the Congress declared that they had “no power to ban slavery from any territory.” The decision was critical due to increasing the North population’s unease, and their concern that the South will begin to transport slaves to freed states, which will

    Read More

  • The American Civil War: The Inevitable Confrontation

    1753 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...ry as inhumane and against universal suffrage. Both abolitionists agreed that compromise was not probable and slave labor was morally wrong. Thus, its expansion must be halted. Similarly the Southern Democrats, although their ideology was the opposite, were not willing to compromise on the issue of the expansion of slavery. Southern Democrat, James Henry Hammond, believed that slavery was necessary for the economic growth of the nation and without it, the North would also perish. Furthermore, the Constitutional Convention of South Carolina agreed secession was unavoidable when Abraham Lincoln was appointed into office. Therefore, initiated the beginning of an inevitable confrontation between the North and the South. These two exceptionally strict and uncompromising ideologies regarding slavery led to one of the most controversial and bloody wars in American history.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Irrepressible Conflict Between The North And South

    1061 Words  | 3 Pages

    The new territories and the discussion of whether they would be admitted to the Union free or slave-holding stirred up animosity. The Compromise of 1850 which offered stricter fugitive slave laws, admitted California as a free state, allowed slavery in Washington D.C., and allowed new territories to choose whether they wanted to be slave-holding or free was supposed to help ease tension between the North and South. Yet Southern states wanted more new territories to be slave-holders so the institution of it would continue to grow. They believed slavery was a way of life and as Larrabee said in his senate speech, “You cannot break apart this organization and this system that has intertwined itself into every social and political fiber of that great people who inhabit one-half of the Union.” (“There is a Conflict of Races”).

    Read More

  • The Failure of the First and Second Reconstruction

    4645 Words  | 10 Pages

    slave holders will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood." Even though both movements, were borne of high hopes they failed in bringing about their goals. Born in hope, they died in despair, as both movements saw many of their gains washed away. I propose to examine why they failed in realizing their goals. My thesis

    Read More

  • The Contrasting Views of Pro-Slavery vs. Abolitionist

    1248 Words  | 3 Pages

    Throughout the history of mankind, slavery has existed in one form or another. Since the times of ancient civilizations to modern era subjugations, there have forces who feel strongly of its necessity and purpose, while others have devoted themselves to seeing the ideas and acts of slavery abolished. America is not an exception to the concept of slavery and during the nation’s early history, parties from both sides have been made famous for their beliefs in the continuation or the denouncement of slavery in the United States. To understand the contrasting views of pro-slavery advocates versus abolitionists in antebellum America, a comparison of the individual positions must be made to further understand the goals of each party.

    Read More

  • The 1860 Presidential Election

    1204 Words  | 3 Pages

    The presidential elections of 1860 was one of the nation’s most memorable one. The north and the south sections of country had a completely different vision of how they envision their home land. What made this worst was that their view was completely opposite of each other. The north, mostly republican supporters, want America to be free; free of slaves and free from bondages. While on the other hand, the south supporters, mostly democratic states, wanted slavery in the country, because this is what they earned their daily living and profit from.

    Read More

  • Events Leading To The Civil War

    866 Words  | 2 Pages

    The South did not want to lose slavery and wanted future territories to have slavery. Compromise is impossible to achieve. Going back to the quote, "The 1850's was a time of attempted compromise when compromise was no longer possible. " During the 1850's compromise was attempted by both the North and South and failed. It failed because both sides wanted different things, and this made compromise impossible.

    Read More

  • Lasting African Conributions to American Society

    893 Words  | 2 Pages

    In 1857, the Dred Scott vs. Sanford case went before a pro-slavery United States Supreme Court. Scott claimed that he had lived as a slave in free state and territory. The high court’s decision was that he was a slave and that the law assuring that slavery would not be allowed in the new territories of the United States was unconstitutional. Because of the court’s decision, it helped accelerate the Civil War. Because of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Northerners tha...

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay: Why Congress Should Be The States

    691 Words  | 2 Pages

    The previous two-party system helped check the North’s power and keep balance in the federal government. However, after the collapse of this old system, the people of the South are not being welcomed into a new party with their best interests in mind (Holt, 405). Northern extremists are threatening slavery, which is a direct attack on the entire southern economy. If extremists succeed in abolishing slavery, they will effectively strip us of our freedom. How can we be free if we are imprisoned by the chains of poverty? The South lacks the political representation in the federal government to fight these extremists and I fear that one day the Northern extremists will destroy the South (Holt, 404). The Northern States have already grown incredibly wealthy due to their more industrial economy, how would the North react if we threatened to ban the use of machinery (Levine, 411)? Their entire economy would be crippled if they lost their main form of production. If slavery was abolished not only would the South lose its main way approach to producing goods; it would flood the market with cheap black labor, taking jobs away from whites (Levine, 410). Without political representation, we cannot get issues that effect Southern states onto the national stage. The federal government is trying to push a way of life onto the South and since the South lacks sufficient political

    Read More

  • Civil War Essay

    694 Words  | 2 Pages

    ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ - Abraham Lincoln on the Dred Scott Decision. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger B Taney made the Dred Scott Decision on March 6th, 1860. They also declared the missouri compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional. This all caused northerners and abolitionists to get angry at the south and the supreme court. This decision showed where the government stood on the issue of slavery and abolition and further fueled the flame of war between the north and south. Scott took his slave owner to court to sue for his fr...

    Read More

  • The Civil Strife

    1007 Words  | 3 Pages

    During the 1850’s, disputes over whether a newly admitted state would be a free or slave territory and the procedure of doing so had risen to dangerous levels, namely because the Constitution did not proclaim anything on slavery until later on. Previously, when the United States annexed a new state, northern and southern leaders had to maintain the sectional balance to avoid upsetting the equally distributed regional power. When California, New Mexico, and Utah applied to be admitted as states in 1849, the perplexity of preserving equilibrium baffled the government and its people. According to southerners and those who were pro-slavery, the Constitution had, in fact, recognized slavery. Since Southern men had aided in the acquirement of the new lands, they also believed ...

    Read More

  • American South

    1998 Words  | 4 Pages

    It is true that the CSA found slavery to be an incredibly important part of their national mission, as evidenced by Alexander Stephens and his speech outlining black slavery as the “cornerstone” of the Confederate government (Stephens). But it was not the reason for secession, nor the sole difference between the Union and Confederacy. The long history of conflict in the Union resulted in what many saw as an unavoidable ending, but what was really a conclusion stemming from a line of precise and certain events which aggravated the relationship between the two parts of the country. The crux of this conflict—the disagreement over slavery—would prove to be the catalyst for the chain of political and social events leading up to the war, but not as the reason for secession.

    Read More

  • The Impact of the Dred Scott Case on the United States

    1457 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Conclusion, the Dred Scott Decision took a long drawn out journey through the court system to be literally, and figuratively dismissed. It addressed a subject, which was not popular, freedom for slaves, and went through several courts, without receiving any merit. While it is not a well-known case, it is on point as to the conflicts over slavery, and how they led to the Civil War. It has been considered the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court, and for good reason. 84

    Read More

  • The Supreme Court Case that Fueled the Beginning of the Civil War

    719 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the years leading to the Civil War, there were many events that sparked wide spread controversy and severely divided the nation. Dred Scott an African American slave whose owner brought him from a slave state to a state that outlawed slavery where he attempted to sue for his freedom. In the year 1854, a mere 6 years before the start of the war, the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford handed down one of its most controversial rulings to date. Known as the Dred Scott Decision, the Supreme Court lead by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney issued a 7 to 2 decision, rendered that Africans whether they were free or slaves were not citizens and that they had no legality to sue in Federal court.

    Read More

  • Social and Political Causes of the Civil War

    838 Words  | 2 Pages

    Political events including the Dred Scott Decision and the States’ Rights Doctrine before the Civil War increased tensions between the North and South. These conflicts resulted from contrasting ideas about slavery, states’ rights, and political parties: the North was mostly Republican, opposed slavery, and preferred a unified nation under the federal law, while the South was mostly Democratic, proslavery, and supported greater rights and power for states. According to Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Supreme Justice during this time, “the Act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind [slaves] in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void” (Dred Scott v. Sandford). Since the ban of slavery in the northern part of the western territory was deemed unconstitutional and lifted by the Dred Scott Decision, an attempt to settle the issue of slavery, the North f...

    Read More

More about Sovereignty and Stephen A. Douglas

Open Document