"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.
“A house divided against itself cannot stand (Document M)”, said by Abraham Lincoln about how the North and South couldn’t continue being half free and half slave states it would slowly destroy the government that they tried to create. Lincoln also stated that, “Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it… or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become lawful…(Document M)”. Scott Dred a slave while wanting to become a member of the political community as told by the legislative and the historians that, “...a Negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property (Document L).” With the help of the rights given to him from the North it was stated that, “..in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void (Document L).” Politics assisted with the cause of the Civil war because the Southern and Northern views on freedom were too different that their would never be a real resolution that would make both political parties within the states
In the 1860’s the United States weren’t united because of the issue of slavery. The civil war was never just about getting the union back together, but about making it count and getting rid of slavery. The south wanted their slaves and would say they are “-the happiest, and in some, the freest people in the world”. (Doc 5) However, the north knew that was not true because of Harriet Beecher Stowe's “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. In 1854 when the Kansas-Nebraska act was passed it caused some issues. Anti-slavery supporters were not happy because they did not want expansion of slavery, but the pro-slavery supporters weren’t happy because they wanted slavery everywhere for sure. (Doc. 7)The Kansas-Nebraska act caused trouble before it was even passed, Senator Charles Sumner argued against and attacked pro-slavery men causing Preston Brooks to beat Sumner with a cane. The south praised Brooks while the north felt for Sumner. (Doc 8) In 1858 during his acceptance speech Lincoln said his famous line, “A house divided
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
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.
Over the course of decades, the issue of slavery, a prominent topic that attributed to countless problems and controversies, served as a significant role in the United States by establishing a division of the anti-slavery North and pro-slavery South. Due to these distinct viewpoints and years of simmering tensions between the northern and southern sectors of the United States, the two apprehensive regions collided and conducted the Civil War, the deadliest conflict in American history. The outbreak of the American Civil War comprised of a series of events, but the four most significant events that triggered the rise of the war were the death of Elijah Lovejoy, the supreme court decision of Dred vs. Scott, the Harper’s Ferry takeover, and the
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.
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.
The debates previewed the issues that the nation would face in the Presidential election of 1860. While many topics were discussed in these debates, the one, which caused the most contention, was that of slavery, specifically its role in the territories and forthcoming states (Encyclopedia Britannica). Other topics discussed throughout the debates were the “authority of states to control slavery within their own borders and whether the Dred Scott decision had been a reasonable one” (Schulmeister). Douglas and Lincoln’s views on the expansion of slavery were diverse. Stephen Douglas was ...
Dred Scott v. Stanford is a case in which an African-American man sued for his freedom. In 1833, Dr. John Emerson purchased a slave. He moved to the Wisconsin Territory with Dred Scott, his slave. Slavery was banned there due to the Missouri Compromise. Because Emerson was in the army, he would go away for long periods of time, and Scott would get small paying jobs while Emerson was away. In 1843 Dr. Emerson passed away, and left Dred Scott, Scott’s wife, and their children to his wife, Eliza Irene Sanford. In 1846, Dred Scott attempted to use the money he had earned over the years to buy his family’s freedom from Sanford, but she would not accept the offer. When Dred Scott was refused his freedom, he decided to sue Sanford for his freedom in a state court. His argument was that he was legally free because he had been living in a territory were slavery had been outlawed. In 1850, Scott was declared free, but Eliza Sanford did not want to deal with the case, so she left the Scott family to her brother, John Sanford, to deal with her affairs. During the time of the case, Scott’s wages were being withheld, and he was owed money from Mr. Sanford. He was not willing to pay Dred Scott his money, so he appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overruled the state court’s decision, ruling in favor of Sanford.
The explosion of the American Civil War was caused by a vast number of conflicting principles and prejudices, fueled by sectional differences, and set afire by a very unfortunate set of political events. Undoubtedly, the central theme of almost all of the events that led up to the Civil War was one way or another, related to the dispute of slavery. Throughout the nineteenth century, slavery-related tensions brewed to such an extent, that politicians often took accustom to avoiding the hot topic altogether, because they were too scared of either starting a big political feud, or losing votes from one side of the issue or the other. More specifically, three events that were most instrumental in bringing about the Civil War were the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 and the Presidential election of 1860. Because of such strong reactions to these events, the Civil War was practically unstoppable, however if the parties wanted to avoid a war altogether, they could have advocated more compromise and popular sovereignty.
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.
From the mid-1840s, the struggle over slavery became central to American politics. Northerners who were committed to free soil, the idea that new, western territories should be reserved exclusively for free white settlers, clashed repeatedly with Southerners who insisted that any limitation on slavery's expansion was unconstitutional meddling with the Southern order and a grave affront to Southern honor. The slavery debate wasn't so much about the morality of the issue, but how it effected the nation politically and economically. This debate would later erupt into war. This furthers the South's commitment to Southern ways, especially slavery, in that they were willing to break from the Union, go to war, and die for the Southern cause.
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
on the road to secession. Dred Scott was a slave who was taken to Missouri from Virginia
Scott's case had quite a bit of legal precedents. The state of Missouri had freed slaves in cases that were very similar to that of Scott's. After 16 years the case finally moved up to the Supreme Court. Emerson's wife had remarried and moved leaving Scott to her brother a Mr. Sandford.