Although there were many causes of the Civil War, racism was one of the most impactful. Racism tore the country apart. Many compromises that were made had to do with some form of racism, most commonly, black people and slavery. A number of these compromises lead to the unjust treatment of black people, which became a political and moral dispute around the 1830’s when abolitionists and slave owners feuded over slavery. One of the most known slave trials in history is the one of Dred Scott vs Sandford which occurred from 1856 to 1857. It wasn’t just a trial for freedom though, it was also an acknowledgement by the North of the immoral ways of America in the 1800’s. This case was a major turning point; the North realized that compromises wouldn’t
…show more content…
John Emerson who migrated to Illinois. Although Illinois was a free state, Scott was not free. After a few years of living in the free state they moved to Louisiana, a slave state. There Emerson died so Scott was left to Emerson’s wife, Eliza Irene Sandford. Scott fought for his freedom, claiming he should be free because he lived in a free state for many years. In 1847 Scott went to trial but lost in a technicality so the case was reopened in 1850. Scott was pronounced free, according to the St. Louis Circuit Court, but the Missouri Supreme Court overrode the smaller court 's decision and claimed that his status as a slave was still intack. With this Scott appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court in 1856. Chief Justice Roger Taney announced the majority opinion of the court in March of 1857. The Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott was black, therefore he was not a citizen. Taney also ruled the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional. Indirectly, Taney ruled that slaves were only property, similar to a dog and the Missouri Compromise was only unconstitutional because it restricted where property (slaves) could be brought. “From that moment on, the two nations- for that is what in fact, and in feeling, they had become- fell almost resolutely apart.” In other words, the South was content with this decision because it meant that they had no regulations when it came to slavery while the Northerners and abolitionists were …show more content…
Compromises only worked for a short period of time. People began to get tired and irritated with compromises; Abolitionists wanted no slaves and slave owners wanted no regulations on their slave owning, therefore there was no room for compromise. Many other conflicts leading to the Civil War stemmed from the conflict of racism and the citizens who believed in abolition. For example, most of the fanatic outbursts of violence were done by extreme abolitionists, who didn’t agree with racism and wanted every citizen to be equal. Lastly, the Dred Scott vs Sandford trial, was a trial of racism and the end of compromises, which meant the beginning of the war. Not only did racism cause conflict in the past but it continues to do so
John Emerson who migrated to Illinois. Although Illinois was a free state, Scott was not free. After a few years of living in the free state they moved to Louisiana, a slave state. There Emerson died so Scott was left to Emerson’s wife, Eliza Irene Sandford. Scott fought for his freedom, claiming he should be free because he lived in a free state for many years. In 1847 Scott went to trial but lost in a technicality so the case was reopened in 1850. Scott was pronounced free, according to the St. Louis Circuit Court, but the Missouri Supreme Court overrode the smaller court 's decision and claimed that his status as a slave was still intack. With this Scott appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court in 1856. Chief Justice Roger Taney announced the majority opinion of the court in March of 1857. The Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott was black, therefore he was not a citizen. Taney also ruled the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional. Indirectly, Taney ruled that slaves were only property, similar to a dog and the Missouri Compromise was only unconstitutional because it restricted where property (slaves) could be brought. “From that moment on, the two nations- for that is what in fact, and in feeling, they had become- fell almost resolutely apart.” In other words, the South was content with this decision because it meant that they had no regulations when it came to slavery while the Northerners and abolitionists were …show more content…
Compromises only worked for a short period of time. People began to get tired and irritated with compromises; Abolitionists wanted no slaves and slave owners wanted no regulations on their slave owning, therefore there was no room for compromise. Many other conflicts leading to the Civil War stemmed from the conflict of racism and the citizens who believed in abolition. For example, most of the fanatic outbursts of violence were done by extreme abolitionists, who didn’t agree with racism and wanted every citizen to be equal. Lastly, the Dred Scott vs Sandford trial, was a trial of racism and the end of compromises, which meant the beginning of the war. Not only did racism cause conflict in the past but it continues to do so