The North and the South had widely different views and opinions on the issue of slavery; they held feelings intense enough to lead to the nation’s Civil War. A majority of Northerners were abolitionists, meaning that they wanted to put an end to slavery, for they saw it to be an enormous moral issue. In a speech given by Frederick Douglass, a former slave that became a Northern abolitionist, he spoke in 1852 to other people who supported the anti-slavery movement, saying, “What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer, a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. … To him, … your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license …show more content…
The Supreme Court became involved with the case and announced its decision, resulting in mixed reactions from the nation. In a quote from the Supreme Court’s address to Dred Scott, they say, “The question is simply this: Can a Negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community. … they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. … And, accordingly, a Negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property. … (I)t is the opinion of this court that the Act of Congress (the Missouri Compromise) … is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void” (Brady 247). The Dred Scott Decision was a significant turning point in the political arguments surrounding slavery. Not only did it state that slaves did not apply to the Constitution because they were deemed property, but it also decreed that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and no longer applied. The Supreme Court’s ruling meant that slave labor could be practiced nationwide, and Congress could not ban slavery. To abolitionists, this was horrible news that went against their whole movement. White Southerners, though, could have seen this as a great decision, for that meant they could build more plantations and utilize slavery even in free states. The Dred Scott Decision was a reason as to why the Civil War started in the United States, attributable to how strongly the negative and positive reactions of people supporting anti-slavery and pro-slavery
When congress was siding more with free states, Southern Leader, John C. Calhoun, created the “doctrine of nullification” which states that “a state has the constitutional right to nullify a national law” (73). This action almost lead to war when South Carolina invoked this doctrine and Andrew Jackson took military action to keep the union in tact. Although both sides were able to reach a compromise, a civil war will take place 30 years from then. Another spike in tensions was the Dred Scott decision (1857). A slave named Dred Scott argued that since his master died in a free state, and the Missouri Compromise of 1820, a federal law, made slavery in a free state illegal, he was a free man.
The court case Dred Scott vs. Sanford — 1856 to 1857 — was vital regarding the lives of enslaved or non-liberated African Americans. The outcome of this trial changed the perspective of slaves all across the United States. Rights concerning liberated and enslaved Americans from Africa were declared and enforced in this case. In 1833, John Emerson — a medical surgen of the US Army — purchased a slaved named Dred Scott.
The case of Scott vs. Sandford was a major factor in the movement for abolitionist. It empowered the newly republican party, and altered the constitution for the good. Till this day, U.S. colored citizens are now treated like citizens due to the Scott vs. Sandford case. Dred Scott, a slave who was purchased by a U.S surgeon -Dr. John Emerson- who worked for the army, moved together in the Wisconsin territory which was in the northern area.
You can bet that southerners were thrilled with the outcome. There was a massive abolitionist campaign to help dred Scott and his family. Many southerners twisted it and said they were anti-southerners, making them enemies of a greater union. The dred Scott case was seen by many southern slave owners and people who supported slavery as a crucial model. Giving them some legal standing to be able to say that the supreme law had not only upheld the law of slavery, but also by basically crushing the Missouri compromise.
The Supreme Court ruled against Scott because the Fifth Amendment protected the property of US citizens, and slaves were considered property. This decision was important because it meant that slavery could be allowed in free states as long as the slaves and their owners came from slave
The decision that was made in the 1857 by the Supreme Court about Dred Scott becoming a freeman was not reasonable or logical. In the 1850s the nation was faced with a conflict over slavery that would threaten to tear the West apart; the free states from the slave states. The main question that Dread Scott argued was whether a slave’s status overrode his previous condition when he entered a free state or territory. Throughout time, slaves had slave owners.
On December 24th 1851 court was adjourned until March 15th 1852. Dred Scott did not deny that the case had been heard before; he did however state the decisions were never based on Missouri law. In Dred Scott’s conclusion he stated, “slavery was the will of God and times now are not what they were when former decisions on the subject were made”. Basically Scott knew racial and sectional prejudices played a role in the decision. Justice Hamilton Gamble agreed with Dred Scott that times have changed but disagreed that any principles had changed.
Thomas Jefferson felt concerned that it would not be enought to please both North and South. The Dred Scott decision affected the Missouri Compromise badly. Congress had declared it unconstitutional to ban slavery in territories. They also declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional because it was a violation
This act had limited the spread of slavery into the new territories. Dred was influenced to become who he is from all the hardships he’s faced as a slave and as a social activist suing for his freedom. Dred Scott became more noticed and popular when he fought in court against Sandford to gain his freedom (Dred Scott v Sandford). Dred had to overcome many things in his life to become who he was. For example, Dred scott’s guardian ms.ermon sold him to her brother; he had been a slave for a long time until he battled in court for his
Dred Scott’s case had also intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery. In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Dred had been “left” by his master for a long time with no word from his master. Dred Scott has decided to challenge for his freedom because he had built a “new life” and his master suddenly one day decided to call him back to him after not hearing from him for months. The court had ruled that African Americans were not citizens, but rather property, and could not sue in
Dred Scott Decision – Was a trial between a slave and his owner. The master moved to a free state and kept a slave even though they had entered a free state. In the end, they ruled in the favor of the master. This decision stated that slaves are just property and can be moved from place to place and still be bound to the master. The significance of this is that it made the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Dred Scott case acted as a trigger for rising tensions and powered the fires of war that eventually overtook the nation. The main issue was whether an individual of African origin, who was transported into the country, and sold as slaves, could be considered a citizen of the country. The Dred Scott case played a significant role in the lead up to the Civil War by fueling sectional tensions, causing many Northerners to view the Supreme Court and federal government as pro-slavery, and ultimately contributing to the secession of the Southern states. First the Dred Scott case impacted the Civil War by powering sectional tension. Federal government believed and claimed that African Americans, whether they were enslaved or free, did not appear as United States citizens.
Douglass was invited to give a celebratory speech to commemorate the birth of the United States, however, what he said instead was much more thought-provoking. Frederick Douglass was an escaped slave who grew to become a prominent figure and activist for the abolitionist movement. In his address, Frederick Douglass seeks to illustrate the ironic and faulty thought that he should be celebrating the Fourth of July with the anti-slavery society by dramatizing the parallels and hypocrisy of the current race relations in
Kyla Valentine DiCiaula AP Lang III 2/24/23 Frederick Douglass Rhetorical Analysis Slavery in the United States was truly a horrific time to be a “negro”; beatings almost every day, scarcity of food and clothing, constant demeaning, belittling, hypocrisy, and much more unfathomable circumstances. In both Frederick Douglass’s self-written narrative and his speech titled, “What is Your Fourth of July to Me?” , he explains, in depth, the negative effects of these aspects of slavery, by using metaphors and biblical/religious allusions. However, while Douglass discusses his own experiences with slavery in his narrative, he acts as a representative for his people and discusses the universal Black experience in his speech, separating himself
The fourth of July and slaves really don’t mix. Frederick douglass was born as a slave and he does a speech on the fourth of july and they are thinking that he is going to give a whora speech but he dont do that it 's the complete opposite of what they thought. In frederick douglass, Hypocrisy of American Slavery he attacks the hypocrisy of a nation celebrating freedom and independence with speeches, parades and platitudes, while, within its borders, nearly four million humans were being kept as slaves. Overall douglass has explained his speech through emotional,ethical,logical appeal and through rhetorical questions.