The case Dred Scott v. Sanford was a major setback to the national solidarity due to the time of the case. In the mid-1800s, the nation was separated into two noteworthy segments, the North and the South. The North was anti-slavery and the South was pro slavery. The case decided that oppressed African Americans have no rights to flexibility, as they are property. It further decided that people of African lineage couldn't assert citizenship in the United States. This disappointed the North in light of the fact that it conflicted with what they had faith in.
The 1857 Dred Scott decision proved that Chief Justice Roger Taney’s sadistic racism could be eclipsed only by his unbounded arrogance. Using outright lies regarding the intentions of the Framers, he temporarily sacrificed the entire African race, and directed the Supreme Court to move in and illegitimate and supercede the powers vested to Congress by the Constitution. Dred Scott brought the integrity of the court into question as Taney twisted and misrepresented precedent and the Constitution to fulfill the wishes of his own biased mind and those of his political party, leading one contemporary lawyer to ask, “If the opinions of these judges were as much calculated to do their party injury as they are to do it a benefit, do you, on your conscience, believe that those opinions ever would have been delivered?” The opinion by Taney, and its’ outcome, were equally convoluted, and equally disastrous to many factions of Americans and the controversy it incited strongly contributed to divisions among the Democrats and Whigs that led to the 1860 Republican victory by Abraham Lincoln, and ironically the Civil War.
Lastly, Dred Scott Case with the United States Supreme court fought freedom for the slaves in the American Legal System. In 1857, the court 's decision denied his plea and determined that no Negro,a term used to portray anybody that was African blood, was or could ever be a citizen. This decision also the reason for the Missouri Compromise, which set restrictions on slavery in certain U.S territories. The Northerners were outraged and the Dred Scott case became a reason to elect president Abraham Lincoln in 1860
The collapse of the second party system signified a removal of a whole structure that resembled the past. The arrival of the Republican Party as an opponent to the Democratic Party supposed slavery the next major matter for political debate. In 1858, the Republicans controlled almost all the Northern states, which meant that the possibility of “no more slave states” (226) was plausible. The Southerners did not think it was possible for the Republicans to end slavery because of the Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott ineffectively sued for his and his family’s freedom. The rejection of Scott’s case in the Missouri Supreme court led to the Dred Scott decision, which prohibited blacks whose ancestors imported to the United States to become American Citizens. The decision, also, brought about the Missouri Compromise of 1820; the compromise prohibited slavery in certain areas. Politicians failed to convey their viewpoint on the subject of slavery, which eventually led to Lincoln’s success in the presidential election of 1860. After Lincoln took power, nearly all slave states were no longer slave states, and it all resulted in the outbreak of a civil
Before the Civil War, the country was separating between North and South. The causes of this splitting are disagreements over tariffs and the matter of slavery, which was legal in the South but had gradually been banned by states north of the Mason-Dixon Line. As the US acquired new territories in the west, unpleasant disputes erupted over whether or not slavery would be legitimate in those newly acquired territories. Southerners became paranoid and began to believe the addition of new non-slaveholding states but no new slaveholding states would give control of the government to abolitionists, and the institution of slavery would be outlawed completely. The slave holding south increasingly felt its interests were threatened, particularly since slavery had been prohibited in much of the new territory that had been added west of the Mississippi River. The Missouri Compromise, the Dred Scott Decision case, the issue of Popular Sovereignty, and John Brown‘s Raid On Harpers Ferry all played a role in the intensifying debate. Whereas once Southerners had talked of an emancipation process that would gradually end slavery, they increasingly took a hard line in favor of perpetuating it forever.
Slavery was one of the factors that played a key role in the causes of the Civil War. The Missouri Compromise was a debate began as to whether Maine and Missouri would enter the Union as free or slave states. To be fair to the rule of the Mason-Dixon Line, Maine was admitted as a free state, and Missouri, even though it was also in the north, would enter as a slave state. The Compromise of 1850 dealt with whether California, Utah, and New Mexico would be slave or free. California was admitted as a free state, but since it made the ratio of slave to free states unequal, " it also stated that the territories of New Mexico and Utah would determine for themselves whether to become slave or free states."(Wise) The Kansas-Nebraska Act decided that any territory that became a state would have the right to vote on whether it would be slave or free, which made Northerners angry because it changed the terms of the Missouri Compromise. The constant flux of the issue of slavery grew during the years leading up to the war, as the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1859, and the Kansas-Nebraska act con...
Political issues such as the Dred Scott Decision and the Election of 1860 developed tensions that led to the Civil War. When Dred Scott, an African American, sued for his freedom, the Supreme Court formed the Dred Scott Decision. Scott sued based on the Missouri Compromise, and stated that he had been in free land when his owner died, therefore he should be free. This application to sue was deemed invalid by the Supreme Court it ruled that any African Americans, including Scott, would never become citizens. Congress now has no power to abolish slavery in federal territories. The Supreme Court announced that, “...Congress could not prohibit someone from taking slaves into federal territory...Congress had no right to ban slavery in any federal territory” (United States History Independence to 1914, 452.) Northerners were shocked because before, Congress was allowed to ban slavery in federal territories. This new ruling meant that Congress no longer had the authority to stop the spread of slavery. Because of this abrupt change in political power, the northerners feared that slavery would spread into federal territories. These tensions ...
‘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...
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.
The overall opinion was given by Mr. Chief Justice Taney, it stated that African American were not considered citizens under the constitution and it was not just limited to that but it also considered the merit of the case as well. The Plaintiff suggested that he was free due to him moving to a free state but the Supreme Court raised another argument that a slave is not considered free even after moving to a free state. The Fifth Amendment gives the people of the United States the right to not be denied property rights without due process of law, so the Supreme Courts sided with the defendant with a set mind that Scott was his property and could not leave him even if he was in a free state or territory. The Missouri compromise was also a piece of legislation that was