46-55

Lasting effects of the Dred Scott decision

The Dred Scott decision was an attempt by the Supreme Court to end the controversy over the role of free states in determining the status of the enslaved. Dred Scott was a slave whose master had taken him into free territory. With the help of northern abolitionists, Scott sued his master for his freedom claiming ‘once free, always free.’ The Supreme Court decided that African Americans were not citizens of the United States, even if they had been born in the United States, and therefore they had no right to sue in the Supreme Court. In fact, the court said they had no rights at all. However, the court went on to rule that Scott was property and that the Constitution of the United States protects the owner of property from having that property taken away by the government.

The court further ruled that Congress could not pass measures such as the Missouri Compromise or the Kansas Nebraska Act limiting the expansion of slavery into the territories. Such acts were ruled unconstitutional because they denied the slave owner the right to take his property anywhere that he wanted. The Dred Scott decision did not end the controversy over slavery. Instead, northerners claimed that the court would deny them the right to outlaw slavery in their states and would end the idea of popular sovereignty, limiting democracy. South Carolinians applauded the decision and accepted the Supreme Court’s ruling as the final word on the issue.

Growth of the Republican Party and its perception as an abolitionist party

Debates over the Dred Scott decision led Republican Abraham Lincoln to national prominence and further split the Democratic Party.

Reasons for growing regionalism of political parties

The Dred Scott decision did not end the controversy over slavery. Instead, northerners claimed that the court would deny them the right to outlaw slavery in their states and would end the idea of popular sovereignty, limiting democracy. South Carolinians applauded the decision and accepted the Supreme Court’s ruling as the final word on the issue.

Effects of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry

Abolitionist John Brown’s raid on the federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry and the publicity that surrounded his trial further heightened sectionalism by stoking the fears of southern slave owners that abolitionists and freed slaves would be a danger to their lives as well as their livelihoods. Many southerners had also come to believe their interests would be gravely threatened by the election of a northern, Republican candidate.

Impact of Lincoln's 1860 election on South Carolina

The election of 1860 prompted South Carolina to secede from the Union. Republican Abraham Lincoln campaigned on a platform of ‘free soil’. “Free soil’ is the idea that slavery should not be allowed to expand to the territories. Lincoln was not an abolitionist in 1860, but a free-soiler. Lincoln won the election with electoral votes from the North. The South and border states split their votes among several candidates. After Lincoln’s election, however, South Carolina called a special convention and signed Articles of Secession claiming that the rights of South Carolinians had not been and would not be protected by the federal government. Six other southern states seceded soon after.

*Members of the South Carolina secession convention in 1860 voted unanimously to secede from the Union.

Unionists arguments for remaining a part of the United States

However, there were South Carolinians who strongly discouraged secession prior to the national election of 1860. Unionists favored the idea of remaining part of the Union. Although Unionists did not necessarily agree with the actions of the Northern states or the federal government, they believed that the United States Constitution was well-equipped to protect South Carolina’s way of life.

Coperationists arguments for unifying with other states

Cooperationists were South Carolinians who favored seceding from the Union. However, this was a last resort and only if it was done with the support of all of the southern states. They believed that it would be a big mistake for South Carolina to secede without the cooperation and support of other southern states.

Secessionists arguments for withdrawing from the Union

On the other hand, secessionists, also known as radicals or fire-eaters, argued that breaking apart from the Union was the only answer for South Carolina. They believed that the issue was not debatable and had been ready to secede since as early as 1852. The events of the 1850s and the election of Lincoln convinced most South Carolinians to support the position of the fire-eaters.

Arguments supporting South Carolina's adoption of the Ordinance of Secession

When it became clear that Lincoln was to be the sixteenth president of the United States, the leaders of South Carolina carried through with their threat to secede. The South Carolina legislature issued a call for a convention to determine the relationship between South Carolina and the Union. The convention met at the First Baptist Church in Columbia but rumors of a smallpox outbreak led them to quickly and conveniently adjourn and move to Charleston where support for secession was strongest. When the meeting reconvened, the leaders unanimously adopted an Ordinance of Secession. This political statement said that the federal government should not interfere with the decision making and freedoms of the individual states (states’ rights). Because Lincoln was a Republican and therefore opposed to slavery in the territories, many Southerners assumed that the federal government would soon make slavery illegal. Ending slavery would, in turn, end southern wealth, political influence and way of life. Without waiting for Lincoln to be inaugurated, South Carolina and six other southern states seceded from the union to protect the institution of slavery upon which their way of life depended.

Page updated

Report abuse