Skip to main content

What was the impact of the Dred Scott decision?

The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandfordgreatly enflamed sectional tensions between the North and the South. By declaring that Dred Scott was not entitled to his freedom, even though he had lived in Wisconsin territory for a time, the Court basically invalidated the Missouri Compromise, which declared territories north of the 36'30 line closed to slavery. This decision thus outraged many Northerners, who were convinced that a "slave power" conspired to spread...

The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford greatly enflamed sectional tensions between the North and the South. By declaring that Dred Scott was not entitled to his freedom, even though he had lived in Wisconsin territory for a time, the Court basically invalidated the Missouri Compromise, which declared territories north of the 36'30 line closed to slavery. This decision thus outraged many Northerners, who were convinced that a "slave power" conspired to spread the institution throughout the nation despite the opposition of the North. (A majority of the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice Roger Taney, was pro-slavery.) It even threatened the doctrine of "popular sovereignty" proposed by Northern Democrats like Stephen Douglas as a solution to the issue of the expansion of slavery. Southerners no longer saw this as a valid political position, and rejected Douglas when he attempted to make it part of the Democratic Party platform in the presidential election of 1860. Most importantly, it greatly added to the popularity of the Republican Party in northern states. The Republicans were devoted to stopping the spread of slavery, and when their candidate Abraham Lincoln won the presidency in 1860, largely because of the split in the Democratic Party mentioned above, the states of the Deep South, led by South Carolina, seceded from the Union. So the decision exacerbated tensions between North and South and made compromise over the issue of slavery far less likely.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the meaning of "juggling fiends" in Macbeth?

Macbeth is beginning to realize that the three witches have been deceiving him since he first encountered them. Like jugglers, they have kept changing their forecasts in order create confusion. This is particularly apparent when the Second Apparition they raise in Act IV,   Scene 1 tells him that no man of woman born can overcome him in hand-to-hand battle--and then Macbeth finds himself confronted by the one man he has been avoiding out of a... Macbeth is beginning to realize that the three witches have been deceiving him since he first encountered them. Like jugglers, they have kept changing their forecasts in order create confusion. This is particularly apparent when the Second Apparition they raise in Act IV,   Scene 1 tells him that no man of woman born can overcome him in hand-to-hand battle--and then Macbeth finds himself confronted by the one man he has been avoiding out of a sense of guilt, and that man tells him: Despair thy charm. And let the angel whom thou still hast serve...
Post a Comment
Read more

What are some external and internal conflicts that Montag has in Fahrenheit 451?

 Montag, the protagonist of Fahrenheit 451, faces both external and internal conflicts throughout the novel. Some examples of these conflicts are: External Conflicts: Conflict with the society: Montag lives in a society that prohibits books and critical thinking. He faces opposition from the government and the people who enforce this law. Montag struggles to come to terms with the fact that his society is based on censorship and control. Conflict with his wife: Montag's wife, Mildred, is completely absorbed in the shallow and meaningless entertainment provided by the government. Montag's growing dissatisfaction with his marriage adds to his external conflict. Conflict with the fire captain: Montag's superior, Captain Beatty, is the personification of the oppressive regime that Montag is fighting against. Montag's struggle against Beatty represents his external conflict with the government. Internal Conflicts: Conflict with his own beliefs: Montag, at the beginning of th...
Post a Comment
Read more

In A People's History of the United States, why does Howard Zinn feel that Wilson made a flimsy argument for entering World War I?

"War is the health of the state," the radical writer Randolph Bourne said, in the midst of the First World War. Indeed, as the nations of Europe went to war in 1914, the governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class struggle was stilled, and young men died in frightful numbers on the battlefields-often for a hundred yards of land, a line of trenches. -- Chapter 14, Page 350, A People's History of the United States Howard Zinn outlines his arguments for why World War I was fought in the opening paragraph of Chapter 14 (referenced above). The nationalism that was created by the Great War benefited the elite political and financial leadership of the various countries involved. Socialism, which was gaining momentum in Europe, as was class struggle, took a backseat to mobilizing for war. Zinn believes that World War I was fought for the gain of the industrial capitalists of Europe in a competition for capital and resources. He states that humanity itself was punished by t...
Post a Comment
Read more