In the early 19th Century, the United States were divided over the issue of slavery. The majority of northern states wanted to stop its expansion or even abolish it, while the southern states wanted the opposite, as slavery was the most important factor in the southern economy. Eventually, the country broke into civil war over the issue. The American Civil War was a direct result of the building tension between the North and South due to lack of compromise and the difficulty of interpretation of the United States Constitution. The debate over slavery was not a new topic. Slavery was on the founding father’s minds when they wrote the Constitution, even though the word slave was never used in the document itself. Early on in the United States’ …show more content…
He believed that because an effective compromise could not be reached, slavery should continue. With the southern states happy, the Union would be restored, and all problems would be solved. However, many did not see indulging the South as a legitimate long-lasting solution, believing that slavery and its expansion needed to end, and again, that compromise was not an effective …show more content…
Curtis argued that Taney’s point was not valid, African-Americans could be citizens, and there were thousands of African-American citizens throughout New England. When speaking of them he brought up the point that “though descended from African slaves, (they) were not only citizens… but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens.” The decision remained however, and Scott remained a slave. Soon after the court case, Scott and his family were sold and eventually freed by their new owners. Scott would die less than a year later in September of 1858. The Dred Scott case would have a profound impact on the weakening bonds of the country, with present day historians identifying it as one of the major causes of the Civil War. The big issue was that of interpreting the Constitution. The Constitution was an old document, even 150 years ago, and it could be read countless ways, each with a different meaning. With no clearly defined meaning to the Constitution, both sides tried to twist the document to their side, causing conflict and increasing tension. This quality of the document aided in splitting the North and South apart, partially leading to the eventual secession of eleven southern