Dred Scott Argument Essay

731 Words3 Pages
Throughout the middle of the 1800s, the unity of the United States was threatened by the possibility of traveling closer to dividing into two separate countries. Disputes between the North and South grew as they disagreed on the allowance of slavery in the United States. The North strongly believed that slavery was immoral and should be abolished, whereas, the economy of the South greatly depended on the work of slaves in the cotton industry. After many years of compromises dealing with popular sovereignty among the states, a few key events led to the inevitable disunion of the United States. The passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the decision in the Dred Scott case led to disunion because they resulted in disagreements between the North…show more content…
In 1854, Stephen Douglas introduced the Kansas-Nebraska Act to Congress in order to amend the issue of slavery among the states. He proposed that the territory of Nebraska be split into two separate states, the other becoming the state of Kansas. Nebraska would become a free state and Kansas would become a slave state. However, this caused tension with the North because they noted that this bill repealed the Missouri Compromise, allowing slavery into land above the thirty six thirty parallel. As the state continued to grow in population, the state began to resemble a miniature United States. The state attracted citizens from both the North and the South, causing the disagreements of the opposing sides to become more evident. By the year 1855, issues emerged when proslavery and antislavery settlers were competing in order to outnumber one another in votes. Two years later, divisions between the North and South grew even stronger when the Supreme Court took on the case of Dred Scott. Scott, who was an African American slave, sued for his freedom after his masters had traveled with him to a free state. The Court, ruled by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, came to the conclusion that Scott was not a free man because he was property and it would be unconstitutional to take the property of a citizen. While the South was pleased with the outcome,
Open Document