The Dred Scott Case: Relationship Between Northern And Southern States

After the failure of the articles of confederation, due to various problems of having a limited national government, the national government sought to write up a new basis for government. The writers of the constitution expanded the strength of the national government, giving them various enumerated powers, to make the national government have more authority over the states to impose order. In addition to the enumerated powers of congress, to avoid limiting the national government to what is in the constitution, Article 1 of the constitution also includes the “necessary and proper” clause which gives congress the ability “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing [enumerated] powers” (Article

The case of Scott vs. Sandford was a major factor in the movement for abolitionist. It empowered the newly republican party, and altered the constitution for the good. Till this day, U.S. colored citizens are now treated like citizens due to the Scott vs. Sandford case. Dred Scott, a slave who was purchased by a U.S surgeon -Dr. John Emerson- who worked for the army, moved together in the Wisconsin territory which was in the northern area.

The dred Scott case resembled an eye opener to northerners who could tolerate slavery as long as it stayed in the south. Many northerners remained quiet, but the thought of slavery protruding into the free states was too terrifying for them to ignore. Northerners who hadn’t said anything before now realized they had to before it was too late, furthering the contribution to the civil war. It was only four years after the courts decision that the civil war had started.

The decision that was made in the 1857 by the Supreme Court about Dred Scott becoming a freeman was not reasonable or logical. In the 1850s the nation was faced with a conflict over slavery that would threaten to tear the West apart; the free states from the slave states. The main question that Dread Scott argued was whether a slave’s status overrode his previous condition when he entered a free state or territory. Throughout time, slaves had slave owners.

There are complex reasons for the occurrence of such a major event, but not a single factor. In fact, although the negative impact of the general, but the decision for the separation of the southern states did not have an indirect or direct role. However, Dred Scott decision for both sides in this country to bridge the differences that do nothing. On the contrary, it gives one of them a complete victory. Worse than that, it weakened the people's sovereignty theory of compromise and pushed the Republicans to a more extreme position, in fact, to accelerate the pace of the country's civil war.

The author’s conviction that ‘northern sectionalism’ and abolitionist sentiment had been ‘rebuked’ and ‘stunned’ is at considerable odds with the substantial abolitionist media retaliation that emerged very rapidly in the North and augmented northern sectionalism. On March 19th 1857, the Chicago Daily Tribune emerged with an impassioned article, which talked of the decision being ‘the first step in a revolution that… threatened to nullify the Revolution of ’76 and make us all slaves again.’ Extract 2 itself, taken from the Northern newspaper, ‘The Albany Evening Journal’ and published just five days after the verdict, makes a similarly impassioned rant denouncing the decision in order to ‘rescue the administration… from Slavery.’ The colossal volume of Northern reactionary material that emerged immediately after the decision indicates that Extract 1‘s claim was inaccurate and calls the value of the Source into question because it demonstrably failed to show an appreciation of true northern opinion towards the Dred Scott decision. Further doubt is cast on the value of Extract 1 because of its inaccurate claim that the decision was ‘made by judges as learned, impartial and unprejudiced as perhaps the world has ever seen.’

The divided opinion amongst the Justices illustrated the divided nation (Scott v. Sandford 1875). When the Dred Scott case came to the Supreme Court, the nation was in a time of great divide, with pro and antislavery groups arguing about whether new states should enter the nation as "slave" states, where slavery was legal, or "free" states, where slavery was illegal. The nation was on the verge of violent conflict over the issue and Congress was too divided to do anything (Pearson Education Inc. 2005). This argument was heightened by the establishment of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had some territories enter the nation as slave states and others as free states (Independence Hall Association 2013).

Before the inevitable beginnings of the American Civil War and states seceding from the Union, the country was plagued with the deciding whether to continue or disband the institution of slavery. Correspondingly, ongoing disputes where many believed their rights and beliefs had been violated on both sides of the quarrel caused seven Lower South to secede from the United States of America to form a new country called the Confederate States of America. However, there are four critical events leading to the American Civil War, specifically the changing political culture of the 1800s, tariffs, Missouri Compromise, and the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court case. Ultimately, the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision was the ultimate catalyst in making

The Dred Scott Decision & History Dred Scott was a African American born in 1795 (1800) to a slave family, in Southampton County, Virginia. Dred Scott was owned by Peter Blow and his family who later moved to Alabama then to Missouri. In the year 1832 Peter passed away Scott was then bought by an army surgeon Dr. John Emerson. In 1836 Scott fell in love with Harriet Robinson, Dr. Emerson bought her and they soon were wed. Soon after Emerson took both slaves and his family with him to the states of Illinois and Wisconsin both of which were free states at the time. John Emerson most likely didn't see this to be an issue since he did not consider himself to live in the state, only to be stationed there.

In 1846, Scott sued his and his family’s freedom, but was rejected by the Supreme Court 11 years later. The final ruling had an immense impact politically, economically and socially. (Bell. “Civil War on the Western Border”). Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote an opinion against Scott, which makes logical sense since he is a southerner.

In 1846, slavery was a very big thing in America. But if a colored man asked if he could be free, would you say no? Well in Dred Scott’s case, that became a reality. That’s why The Dred Scott Decision was significant to American History and it led to the Civil War.

The effects that came from the Dred Scott decision served as eye opener to many northerners who believed that slavery was tolerable as long as it stayed in the South. Suddenly the Northerners, who were not previously

This decision angered both northerners and southerners. The North was upset due to the decision, which declared that black Americans didn’t count as citizens, which made no effort in the abolition of slavery. The South’s issue was that the majority of their state population was African American, and would give them less representatives if they did not count as citizens, or people in general. This affected the election of Abraham Lincoln, which led to the South’s succession and the start of the

Through the Supreme Court rulings such as in the Dred Scott case, the North and South fought numerous times over slavery. The North feared the many potential consequences of this case. The South was reluctant to give up slavery for various reasons. The Dred Scott v. Sandford case set precedent for other cases with similar conflicts. This case also provided reasons for the Civil War to occur between the North and South.

‘Slavery was the root cause of secession’. ‘November 6 1860, Lincoln was elected president of America which resulted in panic emerging in the South’ . The election of Lincoln as president who was a Republican leader meant that ideologies, movements and values from the North would be implemented in the South which meant the abolition of slavery. Slavery was a huge characteristic of the South as the economy; politics; social status and psychological mind-sets were influenced by the process of slavery. The southern white population then derived the idea of secession which meant the South would gain independence from Northern aggression .