Dred Scott Decision, Kansas-Nebraska Act, And Election Of 1860

1028 Words5 Pages

The Civil War was the bloodiest war ever fought on United States soil, with 400,000 Americans captured or missing, 476,000 injuries and about 620,000 deaths. The Civil War started out as a dispute between northern and southern states over slavery. Neither sides wasere willing to give in, and eventually this led to a civil war. Although there are many causes of the Civil War, we believe the major causes are the Missouri Compromise, Dred Scott decision, Kansas-Nebraska Act, and Election of 1860. To start, the Missouri Compromise led to many disputes and eventually veered the nation towards the civil war. In essence, this compromise put a boarder at a 36*30 latitude that would separate the free and slave states. The slave states would be below …show more content…

Dred Scott, a slave who frequently moved from the pro-slavery Missouri and antino-slavery Illinois, offered to buy his freedom after his master died. However, the master’s wife refused, which as a result, Scott sued her. Scott’s suit originated from the basis of how because that he had lived in a non-slave state, he was no longer a slave.. Through a long process of 11 years, his case eventually reached the Supreme Court in Scott vs. Sandford. The Chief Justice of this caseourt was Roger B. Taney. Eventually, the court ruled in favor of Sandford in which Taney wrote the majority opinion. Addressing Scott’s right as a citizen, Taney stated that because the country's founders thought of African Americans having “no rights which a white man was bound to respect” the concluded that Dred Scott did not have the right to sue in court as he was not considered a citizen under the U.S constitution. Also, the justice stated that although Scott had lived in a non-slave state, he could not be considered free as he said, “his status, as a free or slave, depended on the laws of Missouri.” Lastly, Justice Taney addressed the Missouri Compromise’s restriction of slavery throughout the country as unconstitutional as it did not follow the fifth amendment. Due to slaves being considered property, Congress could not ban slavery in the country. This decision slowly over time contributed to the …show more content…

Abraham Lincoln ran for the presidency with the Republican party, against three other candidates, which caused Lincoln’s opposition to be divided three ways. Because of this, Lincoln won the election, but this victory sparked much more conflict between the slave states and free states. This reveals the underlying bitterness between the Southerners and Northerners. The South felt like they were losing power since all of Abraham Lincoln’s votes were cast in the North, yet he won the presidency. Lincoln said he would not interfere with slavery in the South, but didn’t want slavery extending into federal territories, saying, “Let there be no compromise.” One can see from this exchange that there was discrepancy over how the Northern and Southern states saw the outcome of the same event. As a result, on December 20, 1860, delegates from South Carolina decided to secede from the Union, and many other slave states such as Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas also seceded to form the Confederate States of America. Abraham Lincoln opposed the idea that states could leave the Union because they were not satisfied with the government’s position on slavery. This shows that the Union had finally been broken. It demonstrates the controversy the controversy between the Union and newly formed Confederate States of America, and that neither sides wasere willing to

Show More
Open Document