The Conflict Over The Expansion Of Slavery Into New Territories

Between Constitutional ratification and southern secession, the United States increasingly developed sectional tensions between North and South. Regional differences and territorial expansion created the conflict of interests between the states. Proslavery southern and antislavery northern states envisioned their economical and political future in different ways. The question of slavery during the westward expansion was decisive for politics of both sides because more slave states would create voting advantages for the slaveholding states in the Congress. Northwestern territories were occupied by the new settlers from New England who established urbanized culture and infrastructure in Upstate New York and the Upper Northwest. New settlers in the Lower South organized farms and plantations to develop agricultural sector. Slavery was the main labor force in the South. With technological and transportation development, it became easier to migrate in the search of new territories. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the North supported industrialization and manufacturing, while the South was mostly focused on the agricultural development. The whole economy of the southern states depended largely on the cotton production. For many years, the issues of slavery, human rights and racial inequality were the main topics for discussion by people, and the expansion of borders in the beginning of the nineteenth century intensified discussions around these questions. The

The Dred Scott case gave the right of slave owners to take their slaves into the Western territories, which diminished the doctrine of popular sovereignty and harmed the new Republican Party.

Potter argues that there were four basic positions held by politicians of free and slave states and their views on solving the territorial issue. The first was David Wilmot’s, “that Congress possessed the power to regulate slavery in the territories and should use it for the total exclusion of the institution.” The second proposal was to extend the 36 degrees Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, allowing slavery south of this line. The third, known as the

The Three-Fifths Compromise of the Constitution was an agreement between Southern and Northern states in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes for the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. Those who opposed slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Those who supported slavery wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. The so-called compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths was for the benefit of Southern power

　　　　The Dred Scott decision was significant because it was the first time since Marbury v. Madison that the Supreme Court said an act of congress was unconstitutional. It said the congress had no power to ban slavery in the federal territories; therefore, the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. By doing this, the Court also said people in the territories had no right to decide whether their state should be a free or a slave state. This was known as popular sovereignty. The decision also hurt the new Republican Party which was trying to stop the spread of slavery. Further, this decision continued the conflict over slavery between the north and south and

“In 1847, Dred Scott first went to trial to sue for his freedom, (Dred Scott’s fight for freedom).” “While the immediate issue in this case was Dred Scott’s status, the court also had the opportunity to rule on the question of slavery in the territories, (Appleby et all, 446-447).” One of the main issues of this case was that the justices were trying to settle a political problem rather than being completely fair in their decisions. Dred lost the first trial but was granted a second trial. The next year the Missouri Supreme Court decided that the case should be retried, (Dred Scott’s fight for freedom). In 1850, the Circuit Court of St. Louis County

In the 1780s, there was a question of whether slavery would be tolerable in new territories to threaten the Union. Throughout the decades, many compromises were made to avoid disunion. But the Constitution was not clear on this subject which created quite the discussion nationwide when raised in 1857 before the Supreme Court in the form of the Dred Scott case. The Dred Scott decision was an eye-opener to Northerners that believed slavery was acceptable as long as it stayed in the South. If the decision took away any power Congress once had to regulate slavery in new territories, slavery could quickly expand into much of the western United States. Realizing that once slavery expanded into those territories, it could quickly spread into the once-free states. Many Northerners remained silent on the issue, this very possibility was too scary to ignore. Northerners who had not previously been against the South and against slavery began to realize that if they did not stop slavery now, they might never again have the chance. The growing fear in the North helped further contributed to an ongoing dispute between the two sides which eventually lead to the Civil War. A couple years after Chief Justice Taney read Scott v. Sandford decision, half of the Union had seceded and the nation was engaged in civil war. However, because of the passions it created on both sides, Taney 's decision certainly quickly accelerated the start of conflict. Even in 1865, as the long and bloody

Although the Dred Scott case broke the Missouri Compromise which placed restrictions on slavery in some U.S. territories. This case became a rallying point for the abolitionists leading to the election of Abraham Lincoln. The Dred Scott case eventually got people to stop protesting slavery, but the Court had broken the Missouri Compromise and people in the North were outraged. The Dred Scott decision is important because although it was intended to settle the question of slavery, it adopted a strong view and let

During the 19th century, so known “peculiar institution” of slavery dominated labor systems of the American South, also dominated most production in the US and led to a boost of the economy of the New Republic. By the 1850 's, US had become a country segregated into two regional identities, known as the Slave South and the Free North. While the South maintained a pro-slavery identity that supported and protected the expansion of slavery westward, the North largely held abolitionist views and opposed the slavery’s westward expansion. Until the 1850 's the nation uncertainly balanced the slavery subject between the two opponents. However, the acquisition of the Louisiana territories in 1803 by the Jefferson administration doubled the size of the US and the victory in the Mexican-American War extended the territory to the Pacific which quadrupled the area of the US. Ultimately, the territorial expansion led to the spread of slavery. In this essay, I will describe some of the reasons for the expansion of slavery including its influence in national politics, and consequences such as political debates and crises of 1850’s.

The presidential election of 1860 set the stage for the American Civil war. By 1860, the nation had been divided mostly up to that point regarding questions of states’ rights and slavery in the territories. Southerners were outraged over the plan by abolitionist, John Brown, to start a slave rebellion at Harper Ferry, Virginia. This event garnered headlines all over the nation in newspapers and magazines. On the other hand, the Northern Republic seemed equally anger by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Dred Scott v. Stanford, which declared free soil unconstitutional. The Northern Democrats, however, struggled to persuade the Americans that their policy of popular sovereignty still made since.

The westward expansion of slavery was one of the most dynamic economic and social processes going on in this country. The Industrial Revolution had changed every aspect of American life and the country’s borders spread westward with the addition of the Mexican Cession—opening new cotton fields. To maintain the original Constitutional balance of lawmaking power, Congress continued to play the compromise game in 1820 and 1850 to maintain an equal number of free and slave votes in the Senate (where every state had two votes).

This idea got the chance to be known as "Surely understood Sovereignty." The response for the issues showed was devised by Henry Clay. He suspected that California should be going into the Union as a free state and all other drawing nearer locales would vote. He moreover proposed more stringent Fugitive Slave Laws and the removal of slave trade from the District of Columbia. To wrap things up consolidated into this exchange off was the course of action to settle the points of confinement of Texas and acknowledge its $10 million commitment. The accompanying issue that incited the Civil war was the Dred Scott Decision. Dred Scott was a dull slave that lived for quite a while in Illinois with his ruler. He sued for his chance in perspective of his drawn out keep centered soil. The Supreme Court heard the case and chose that consequent to Dred Scott was a dim slave, he was not a national and along these lines not allowed to sue. The Court took the choice further, saying that consequent to a slave was property, they could be taken into any space and be held there under the laws of enslavement. The choice relied on upon the fifth change, which denied Congress the benefit to strip people of their property without due method of law. Southerners were fulfilled by the triumph for the circumstance, however abolitionists all over were sickened at the possibility that subjugation could honestly spread

Secondly, the Dred Scott case contributed major time to the Civil War. Scott was taken to an area in the North were slavery was

     One of the final cause of the Civil was involved a slave named Dred Scott. Dred Scott was an enslaved person owned by John Emerson. Emerson took Dred Scott from Missouri to Illinois, a free state. They then moved back to Missouri, which was a slave state under the Missouri Compromise. In 1857 Dred Scott sued the state of Missouri on the claim that by living in a free state, he was free and had earned his freedom. Scott won that case, but the ruling was later overturn by the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the compromises including the Missouri Compromise were unconstitutional and that African Americans were not United State citizens and could not be a citizen. Slaves were considered property and had no rights.

The way Americans think of slavery now has changed since then. Textbooks seem to take 25 decades of slavery and put it into one chapter, which makes for a very static picture. Many individuals may not ponder the question of whether or not America would still be the same had it not been for slavery. At the end of the American revolution the number of slaves in America increased five times over, and it was this very expansion that produced a very powerful nation. It would be safe to say that this expansion of slavery had shaped many stories in the Post-Civil war Untied