Friday, October 11, 2013

Dred Scott Case and the Political Shuffle

Today we learned of the harsher hostilities and the even deeper ridge separating the Southern states from the Northern states. For example, Chief Justice Roger Taney (pronounced "taw-nee"), who was a pro slavery southerner, not only degraded all blacks to a position of non-citizenship, but also declared the relatively ancient Missouri Compromise (which had upheld stability between the South and the North for decades while allowing for additional states to be added) to be unconstitutional. Taney was clearly ruling against Dred Scott, the defendant in question, to preserve the views of the South. Earlier, Scott had been freed under state court, but the idea of freeing slaves contradicted against southern ideals, making the southern argument against freeing blacks weaker.

Another segment of the documentary we watched was about the mass political shifting during the 1850s. The Whig party met its demise because it had irreparably split over the issue of slavery. When Southern pro slavery Whigs nominated General Winfield Scott, many Northern Whigs fled from the Whig party.

The Democratic party likewise split; Southern pro-slavery Democrats stayed Democrats while many Northern anti-slavery Democrats joined the newly founded Republican party, comprised of former Democrats, Free-Soilers, and other anti-slavery parties. Eventually, two major parties emerged: Democrats in the South, and Republicans in the North. The lack of a unified political party did not help in keeping peace...



1 comment:

  1. The political shuffling at this time was also caused by the rise in sectionalism. As the North and South grew apart on may issues regarding the expansion of slavery, so did the political parties. In many ways the Dred Scott case was the tipping point as many congressmen were forced to choose a side on the slavery debate resulting in the creation of two distinct region parties, the Republicans and the Democrats.

    ReplyDelete