What Is The Basis Of The Dred Scott V. Sandford Case

Before the inevitable beginnings of the American Civil War and states seceding from the Union, the country was plagued with the deciding whether to continue or disband the institution of slavery. Correspondingly, ongoing disputes where many believed their rights and beliefs had been violated on both sides of the quarrel caused seven Lower South to secede from the United States of America to form a new country called the Confederate States of America. However, there are four critical events leading to the American Civil War, specifically the changing political culture of the 1800s, tariffs, Missouri Compromise, and the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court case. Ultimately, the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision was the ultimate catalyst in making

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

The ruling had included “two northern justices [joining] the all five southern members,” to eventually equate to the 7 to 2 ruling of Dred Scott and his wife remaining a slave despite his owner taking him to a free state. By having two northern justices advocating for the Dred Scott to remain a slave alongside the decision to disband the Missouri Compromise caused northerners and abolitionist alike to fear for the future of the nation. Incidentally, it did not come as a surprise for most since the courts were dominated by pro-slavery individuals, but it further reinforced the ideology that slavery was here to