Dred Scott Decision and opinions on Slavery

Why is Seward so opposed to Henry Clay's omnibus bill?

"But there is a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The territory is a part—no inconsiderable part—of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the universe." He opposed compromise of any kind and sought to undercut the constitutional protection for slavery.

Dred Scott Decision

A Missouri slave sued for his freedom, claiming that his four-year stay in the northern portion of the Louisiana Territory made free land by the Missouri Compromise had made him a free man. The U.S. Supreme Court decided he could not sue in federal court because he was property, not a citizen.

Kansas-Nebraska Act

1854 - Created Nebraska and Kansas as states and gave the people in those territories the right to chose to be a free or slave state through popular sovereignty.

How does Calhoun think the Union can be preserved?

Calhoun believes that adopting measures of honor and security will satisfy the states and remain in the union.

Popular Sovereignty

Principle that the power to govern belongs to the people, who can then grant it to the government of their choice.

John C. Calhoun

South Carolina Senator - advocate for state's rights, limited government, and nullification

Compromise of 1850

(1) California admitted as free state, (2) territorial status and popular sovereignty of Utah and New Mexico, (3) resolution of Texas-New Mexico boundaries, (4) federal assumption of Texas debt, (5) slave trade abolished in DC, and (6) new fugitive slave law; advocated by Henry Clay and Stephen A. Douglas

Stephen Douglas

A moderate, who introduced the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 and popularized the idea of popular sovereignty.

Provisions of 1850 Compromise

A new, stricter Fugitive Slave Law: Congress passed a strict fugitive slave law, which required officials in all states and territories to assist with the return of enslaved people who had escaped to freedom or pay a substantial fine. Admission of California as a free state: To balance the Fugitive Slave Act's concession to the South, Congress admitted California as a free state. Popular sovereignty in New Mexico and Utah territories: Congress avoided a direct decision on the question of slavery in the new Territory of New Mexico and the Territory of Utah, employing the principle of popular sovereignty. This allowed white residents of the territories to decide for themselves whether to allow slavery. A ban on slave trading in Washington, DC: Antislavery advocates welcomed Congress's ban on the slave trade in Washington, DC, although slavery itself continued to be legal in the capital.

Missouri Compromise

An act of Congress passed in 1820 to keep a balance between the number of slaves and free states; it allowed Missouri to enter the union as a slave state and Maine to enter as a free state; the agreement excluded slavery from the Louisiana Territory North of 36º 30' (The southern border of Missouri) The Missouri Compromise would remain in force for just over 30 years before it was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.

Roger B. Taney

As chief justice, he wrote the important decision in the Dred Scott case, upholding police power of states and asserting the principle of social responsibility of private property. He was Southern and upheld the fugitive slave laws.

What does the rapid rise and fall of the Know-Nothings suggest about politics in 1850s?

But the Know-Nothings' star fell nearly as fast as it rose. At their first national convention in 1855, northern anti-slavery delegates bolted after southerners and conservatives approved the Kansas-Nebraska Act, signaling their support for the westward expansion of slavery. Anti-slavery Know-Nothings then joined the Republican Party. The Know-Nothing Speaker of the House, Nathaniel Banks, soon aligned with the Republicans too. By the late 1850s it was clear that voters saw slavery, not immigration, as the most critical issue facing the nation, and that the Republican Party would replace the Whigs as the main opponent to the Democrats.

Why does Calhoun believe that the Union is in danger?

Calhoun believed that the Union was in danger because of the almost universal discontent which pervades all states composing the southern section of the union. This discontent is found with the belief of the people in the southern states, as prevalent as the discontent itself, that they cannot remain as things now are, consistently with honor and safety in the union. He believed that Popular Sovereignty should be applied to this issue of slavery. So that the southern states, would vote or decide whether slavery would be legal in their area. The causes of this belief are the long-continued agitation of the slave question on the part of the north and found in the fact that the equilibrium between the two sections in the government, as it stood when the Constitution was ratified and the government put in action has been destroy. *The Union's disagreement about slavery would lead to civil war to break up the union.

Calhoun Contributions

Calhoun reinforced the need for a stronger fugitive slave law and condemned what he saw as northern aggression, warning that the South would leave the Union sooner than submit to limitations on slavery.

What does Calhoun say about the North? Do you think his views are Justified? Explain your answer.

Calhoun says that "The North has the absolute control over the Government, it is manifest that on all questions between it and the South, where there is a diversity of interests, the interests of the later will be sacrificed to the former, however oppressive the effect may be.... But if there was no question of vital importance to the south, in reference to which there was a diversity of interests views between the two sections, this state of things might be endured without the hazard of destruction to the South. But such is not the fact.... I think his views was justified because he explain everything that was important. Specifically, Calhoun believed that we will persist in what we believe in such as freedom of slavery and could break away from such right. "I Trust we shall persist in our resistance until restoration of all our rights, or disunion, one or the other is the consequence." The Compromise: Henry Clay fashions another compromise on this subject. John C. Calhoun of South Carolina and Jefferson Davis of Mississippi declare compromise unfair to south. Others called it unfair to the north.

What facts of Dred Scott v. Sanford were presented to the jury?

Dred Scott and his owner Dr. Emerson moved to Rock Island, Illinois, in 1834, which was a free state where slavery wasn't allowed. Then, the family moved to Fort Snelling in upper Louisiana territory in 1836, which was under the Missouri Compromise, which states that slavery was prohibited in this territory. Dred Scott mentioned these events when he was in Missouri Court. However, Sanford's lawyers challenged Scott and his rights to sue by saying that African Americans couldn't be citizens. The Federal court ruled that Scott's status in Missouri depended on state law, not on where he had lived or had traveled. Therefore, they ruled in Sanford's favor.

State the issue before the supreme court in this case. (Dred Scott)

Dred Scott was an African American slave in Missouri; he was considered as property of Dr. Emerson. In 1836, the household moved to the Louisiana territory, which fell under the Missouri compromise, where slavery was prohibited. Then the family returned to Missouri. Then Dr. Emerson passed away. In 1846, with the help of lawyers in the anti-slave movement, Scott sued Emerson's widow in Missouri (lower court) to declare him free because he was a resident of a free state and free territory; this was the main issue of this case. Then the lower court declared him a free man, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision in 1852. Then, Scott's advisors sued Scott's new owner John Sanford of New York. Sanford's lawyers challenged Scott's right to sue because African Americans could not be considered as citizens. Finally, the federal court ruled that Scott's status as a slave in Missouri depended on state law, not on where he lived and traveled. The case involved several issues: (1) Was Dred Scott a citizen of the U.S. and thereby entitled to sue in federal court with protection and rights? (2) Did Scott's residence in free territory make him free? The court then added another issue; Was the Missouri Compromise constitutional? Supreme Court.

If the Know-Nothings existed today, do you think that they would have many supporters? Explain your answers.

I don't think there will be many supporters because many of it's important goals won't work in todays standards. Goals such as party endorsed limits on immigration, restriction of voting and political offices to native born Americans, and a twenty-one-year residency requirement for naturalized citizenship. These ideas won't work anymore as America is now an inclusive country meaning there is no limits on immigration, anyone can vote, and does not need 21 years of naturalized citizenship.

Would Calhoun's proposal have prevented secession?

It probably wouldn't prevent secession because the question of if slavery good or bad was still left unanswered and still have people skeptical about it.

William Seward

Secretary of State who was responsible for purchasing Alaskan Territory from Russia. By purchasing Alaska, he expanded the territory of the country at a reasonable price.

What is Seward's view of the concept of slave and free states?

Seward believed that the nation was divided between free and slave-holding states. He sort of argued how corrupt and injustice slavery was. He also believes that it either be free labor or slavery, however, he also believes that they cannot coexist. Only two states in which slaves are the majority, and not one in which the slaveholders are not a very disproportionate minority. *proclaimed that slavery would be extinguished in the country.

What is Seward's opinion on slavery? or what does he base his assertions? Explain your answers.

Seward believed the slave system to be "intolerable, unjust, and inhuman. Seward believed that Americans were born equal and are entitled to the same individual liberties. He also indicated that having slave states and free states was incompatible and that "it is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slaveholding nation, or entirely a free-labor nation." He insisted that a decision must be made about slave states and free states "even at the cost of civil war."

Seward's Opinions

Seward's speech, in which he invoked the idea of a "higher moral law" than the Constitution and displayed contradictions within the Constitutional text itself, brought abolitionist rhetoric from the margins to the mainstream.

What are the major goals of the know-nothing party? Why would someone find these demands attractive?

The Know-Nothing Party intended to prevent Catholics and immigrants from being elected to political offices. Its members also hoped to deny these people jobs in the private sector, arguing that the nation's business owners needed to employ true Americans. The majority of Know-Nothings came from middle and working-class backgrounds.

What was the decision of the court for the Dred Scott Decision? What was the rationale behind it?

The decision of the court after months of debate, the court, by a 7-2, ruled against Scott, stating that Scott, of African descent, could not be a citizen or entitled to sue. It was considered that Scott and all enslaved people were property, and to make Scott a free man in his presence of the territory or congress passing an act declaring him free would allow citizens to be taken without due process of law. The majority of opinion was that slavery was a matter for state law. Taney's opinion ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories and could not authorize territorial legislatures to outlaw slavery.

What was the effect of the Dred Scott Decision?

The effect of the decision of Dred Scott was that the Supreme court declared an act of congress unconstitutional. This led to tension between the northern and southern states over the question of slavery; then, the court declared congress had no right to determine slavery examination into the territories. Declaring that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because it limited popular sovereignty, saying that people in the territories could not vote on whether they wanted their state to be slave or free, leading to the Civil War. Finally, the civil war led to the 13th amendment of the constitution, which abolished slavery, and the 14th amendment granted African Americans citizenship.

Compare William Seward's remarks to those of John C. Calhoun (Document 10.1). How do their speeches reflect growing sectional disputes in American politics?

Their speeches reflect the political problem of slavery. Both represent their views on slavery. Calhoun thought slavery should remain because by popular vote in those states, the people in those areas thought slavery was ok. and in his Southern address of 1849, Calhoun said "that too many free states in the union would weaken slavery until it was destroyed for all states." So if slavery weren't allowed in the new territories then they would be outnumbered free states to slave states. Seward was the opposite of Calhoun as he thought slavery was "intolerable, unjust, and inhuman."