The Enlightenment was a spread of ideas that occurred in Europe in which people began to think about humane things and individualism. These ideas caused a reaction in the colonies that is now known as The Great Awakening. During this Great Awakening, preachers called ‘New Lights’ spread their ideas to the people, causing mass effect. This leads to the Great Awakening causing a democratic spirit to emerge among the people.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited the expansion of slavery any further west than Missouri and north of the 36° 30´ latitude line. However, the outcome of the Mexican-American War brought a considerable amount of land in the southwest under US control. The question over the expansion of slavery once more became a heated national issue. A key question was whether or not Southerners who settled in the new territories were allowed to bring their slaves with them. The Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 established popular sovereignty in western territories, meaning settlers were to vote over the allowance of slavery, effectively repealing the Compromise of 1820. This resulted in Bleeding Kansas, as armed northerners
The North and the South were very different during the antebellum period. For starters, the northern economy boomed because of their industrialization and textiles, while the southern economy boomed off of cash crops like cotton. These cash crops were produced by slaves who were forced to work on southern plantations. Many white citizens in the North cared little about slavery, since this institution was depended on more in the South than North. However, this changed when the South’s Cotton Kingdom grew. This required the need for more land, which motivated Southerners to expand their plantations west. This movement was called Westward Expansion. The expansion attracted the attention of many Northerners because they did not want the South to convert territories won by the Mexican war to slave territories. This conflict polarized the nation, and leads to the Civil War. The Kansas Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott case were the leading factors that helped polarize the nation because these event turned the North and the South against each other due to their opposing ideas on slavery, which ultimately lead to the Civil War.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 angered the North because it voided the Missouri Compromise that they agreed to 34 years prior. The Free States felt they were undermined. The Fugitive Slave Law fueled the anti-slavery feelings in the North. It was probably one of the most important causes that bought on war. The law said that if slaves escape from the North, northerners are responsible for assisting in his capture and return. This brought many questions to peop...
The Second Great Awakening was a series of highly emotional revivals. These revivals focused much on the religious changes going on during the early 19th century. This lasted for about 50 years or so. During the religious upheavals, there came the idea of a freedom of new belief. In the 1780s, the Protestant Episcopal Church replaced Anglicanism. There were forms of Baptist practices as well as a new evangelical Christian faith. These new faiths attracted the South because they focused on the emotional nature of religion. The revivals began in Virginia where it progressed to Kentucky and Tennessee. Eventually, the awakening spread to a...
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...
The Dred Scott Case had a vast impact on the United States. The case was an eye opener on the rights of slaves, and their freedom. Especially the decision of Taney's ruling on the case of Dred Scott V. Sandford, which lead to one of the causes to the Civil war. Traney, who spoke in behalf of the court, decided on two major conclusions on why they had ruled against Dred Scott. The first claim was that African Americans were property and if they were a free, slave, they will never be considered citizens of the United States, in addition to not have the right to sue in Federal courts. As a result, the ruling was a big scandal for the United states, not only were anti- slavery advocates angry, but pro slavery advocates were not too happy
In the mid to late 1800’s, America was a hard place to live in if you were a person of color. Slavery was still legal in the south during the 1800’s and was practised in the majority of the states. While slavery was legal in the South, it was outlawed in the North. With this being the case, a separation between slave states and non slave states, there needed to be a border to separate the two. This means that once this line was crossed, ideally, a slave would no longer be a slave. If he was not freed, there would be some sort of Consequence However, this was not the case when it came to the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. Dred Scott was a slave from Missouri who was owned by Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon in the U.S. army. Prior to the civil war
The Dred Scott Case was a dispute between Dred Scott, and his owner Sanford. Dred Scott was a slave who was brought into a free territory by his owner, from this Scott tried to sue for his freedom. The conflict led to a Supreme Court decision that said that any African-American, free or slave, could not be a citizen of the United States. Therefore, African-American’s had no right to sue in federal court. This meant that any previous attempt to end slavery was now invalid. The decision effectively ended the Missouri Compromise, creating a rivalry between the North and the South, leading the way for the Civil War. In today’s society, we have similar problems like the Dred Scott case. An example is the debate of same-sex marriage. Which is fighting for human equality.
This case is about a man that wants his freedom because he lived in a free state and moved back to a slave state, but the court believes, "...that under the Constitution, he was his master's property." (Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sanford). Also Dred Scott v Sanford was a very good experience for our country. It helped congress realize that slavery wasn't right and that the country shouldn't have it any more. Then It helped our congress realize that they were very judgmental toward the African Americans. Also It helped congress understand more about how bad the people treated the African Americans.