The Expansion Of Slavery And The Civil War

Buchanan took it upon himself to avoid any issue that had to do with slavery in the territories. Not wanting to face any consequences on the matter, Buchanan push all matters of slavery to the Supreme Court; such as the Dred Scott case. Dred Scott was a slave who decided to sue his slave owner for freedom after he had been taken into territories where slavery was banned. The Supreme Court Justice, Roger Taney, ruled against Scott; “…not only ruled that slaves were property, not people, but also invalidated the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which barred slavery in much of the Louisiana Purchase” (Sheets, 331). Therefore, abolitionists were enraged and “were now convinced that the time had come for more radical, violent action” (Griffin, PP4,

Slavery has been a big part of american history. Of course slaves are human but as our history shows, they were treated as if they were animals, inhumane to be exact. Slaves were treated unfairly and were forced to do things they did not want to. For example in the Roots: What’s your name “Kunta Kintei” Kunta was forced to change his name to Toby and when he fought back to save his identity he was hung up by his arms and whipped repeatedly until he accepted the name his master gave him. This just goes to show how slave were not treated like humans, they were forced to give up their identities and become the people their master wanted them to become. Amistad: “The Middle Passage” shows hundreds of slaves chained up like animals being whipped

Dred Scott was taken back into slavery and accused Sandford because Scott was in a free states and claimed that he was in the free state long enough to be a free slave. The Supreme court ruled against Dred Scott, this decision affected blacks preventing them to become citizens and an giving them the right to appeal to a jury and making it harder for a slave to escape because the free states didn’t make a runaway slave a free slave. The case also affected popular sovereignty. Where states got to choose if they were to be a free states or a slave

Westward Expansion and Slavery were the prominent reasons for the secession crisis. The North and South developed tension due to their differing economic backgrounds. The South’s economy was heavily reliant on slave labor to produce cotton, making them want to fight to protect their way of life and the pillars of their society. In contrast, industry fueled the North, allowing the region to see the evil nature of slavery and develop antislavery views. The Fugitive Slave act of 1850 forced Northerners to support the institution through returning runaway slaves, creating anger and resistance in the North and additional tension. In response, Southerners threatened to succeed from the union due to their view that this infringed on their individual rights and damaged the backbone of their livelihood. Additionally, the regional economies impacted views on westward expansion and whether new territories or states should permit the institution, such as California This resulted in a major increase in the stress between the regions due to each region wanting equal representation. Although members of the government attempted to compromise to even out the number of slave and non slave states, such as the Compromise of 1850, there were countless times that the two regions struggled over the laws of slavery and the territories that it should be permitted, further increasing the ideological and political divide and leading to the secession of the Southern states.

he Dred Scott decision of 1857 was a significant decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court that declared that blacks, regardless of whether they were free or a slave, had no legal standing because they were not American citizens. The decision was not the first to be made regarding Dred Scott; a Missouri jury ruled in Scott 's favour when Scott claimed that his residence in Illinois and Wisconsin made him free, but the state supreme court ruled against him, which lead to the case being escalated to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court ruled against Scott 7-2.

The Results of Dred Scott v Sanford had different effects on American history. This also contributed to the start of the civil war. Dred Scott v Sanford was a court decision on if Dred Scott could sue for his freedom. " According to Supreme Court History, Dred Scott could not sue for his freedom because he was not a citizen. " This was otherwise known as an illegal case. The effects of the Dred Scott decision were Sectional tensions between the north and south, Succession from the union, presidents could not use the term slavery or they would most definitely lose the election. The Contribution to the Civil war that the decision had was that the Republican party was formed, Which made the North and south closer to war.

Manifest Destiny gave Americans the idea that they had the right to expand through the continent to spread the freedom and liberty they had come to know. This freedom and liberty did not apply to all. A significant numbers of Americans viewed themselves as superior to the people of the unsettle regions, namely the Indians and the Mexicans. This idea of racial superiority was also the underlying issue within the debate of slavery. The expansion throughout the continent would only serve to reopen the controversy over slavery and create further tension between the North and South. As long as there was a fundamental difference in beliefs throughout the country, conflict would continue.

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. This man stated that no African American could ever enjoy the rights of a U.S. citizen, thus not being able to sue. He also said that the federal government had no authority to limit the expansion of slavery, declaring that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional. In all, the Dred Scott Decision infuriated abolitionists and Republicans, because they wanted to prevent the expansion of slavery in the West. They also feared that slavery would spread. This

The people who watched oppression rose to the test advanced by the Abolitionists. The shields of subjection included monetary viewpoints, history, religion, authenticity, social extraordinary, and even charity, to propel their disputes. Shields of enslavement battled that the sudden end to the slave economy would have had a noteworthy and executing money related impact in the South where reliance on slave work was the foundation of their economy. The cotton economy would fold. The tobacco yield would dry in the fields. Rice would quit being beneficial. A more critical train couldn 't be imagined [thought up] or executed [put] upon the Southern slave on this day than to give him that flexibility which God in his insightfulness and thoughtfulness

Sandford decision was also a considerable factor in the vents leading up to the Civil War. In fact, there is reason to believe the landmark decision of the case made the Civil War inevitable. The basis for the case revolved around Dred Scott and his owner taking him to “live for several years in Illinois, a free state,” where they would eventually return to Missouri, a slave state. Dred Scott sued for his freedom on the basis that due to his residence being in a free state, he would be considered a free man along with his wife. In a 7 to 2 ruling, the Supreme Court found that Dred Scott would still be a slave despite his owner taking him to a free territory. Additional rulings of the Supreme Court found the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional, and African Americans would never be able to be citizens of the United States. Most importantly, by citing the Missouri Compromise as being unconstitutional, it sent a message to all Americans, regardless of the slavery positioning, that Congress “had no power to ban slavery from any territory of the United States.” These comments and rulings by the court undermined other key concepts of democracy in America such as popular sovereignty, and “foreshadowed the spread of slavery throughout the West.” For northerners, this further confirmed their slave-powered conspiracies by demonstrating that even the government could not control or prevent the institution of slavery from further expanding into new

In 1857 the Supreme Court overruled a previous decision by the circuit court of St. Louis County, Missouri. The Case of Dred Scott versus John F. A. Sandford would go down in history as one of the courts most erroneous rulings. This verdict called into question a slaves rights in free states, popular sovereignty and the legality of the Missouri Compromise. Dred Scott had won a previous court battle over his former master John Sandford claiming that he had assaulted his wife and children and that he should in fact be a free man because he had been moved to Illinois and Wisconsin for a time. Since both were free territories he should in fact be free. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote the opinion on the case, stating that because he was a black

Roger Taney played a vital role with the tension between the north and the south based on the decision he made with the Dread Scott case. Because of Taney’s decision, he led many conflicts such as the free or slave black person, the Missouri Compromise, and lastly the conflict between the north and the south idea on slavery.

Slavery has proved itself to be one of the most gruesome and unnerving events in the history of the planet, on par with the Holocaust. Due to this issue, many men, women, and children have fought and are still fighting for their basic human rights and yearn to be equal due to this incident in our history. With this in mind, slavery, a horrific event which started in the early 1600’s, was perpetrated against African natives and both its influence and importance has spread into the current day. Although slavery is banned today in America, it still goes on today.

First, there is the impact on the populations of areas to which the slaves came. Slavery has changed the demographic face of these areas. Some countries, like Haiti and Jamaica, have populations mostly descended from Africans. Others, like Brazil and the US, have populations with large minorities of people of African descent.

When it comes to slavery, we wear it, we eat it, and we drive it. Despite not “buying into it,” we often unknowingly maintain it.