Because of the Roger B. Taney's and the supreme courts decision that African America could not be citizens and that the constitution only pertained to white citizens. this decision light the already burning fuse between the North and South which definitely hastened the first shot of the Civil War. The supreme court failed to come to a comprise that would please both the North and the South and bring unity to a new country.
The case Dred Scott v. Sandford is one of the most important in American History. A slave from Missouri was trying to win his freedom from his owner John Emerson. The question that arose was if he was still going to be a slave even though he lived in a free state. Roger B. Taney was the supreme court justice in this case, and Scott lost. Taney was hoping his decision would put an end to the arguments about slavery but in fact made them worse. The supreme court couldn't accommodate both the North's and South's view. It was a very big influence as to why the American Civil War started.
The ruling of Dred Scot v. Sanford undoutably brought the Civil War on sooner. Abolitionists in the north would have been infuriated by the ruling, not only becuase slavery was now unregulated and could spread acorss the country, but because Taney strayed from the law so clearly in his opinion. He degrads African Americans as "unfit to associate with the white race", no where in the Constitution does it say this, that was his own racism interfering with his duty as a Supreme Court Justice.
The case and ruling of Dred Scott v. Sandford absolutely brought on the Civil War quicker than it would have happened naturally. Chief Justice Taney was hoping that he would be able to help put to rest issues between the north and south with his ruling, but instead brought on more intense feelings of hatred inside the country. Taney saying that essentially slaves were still slaves in any state angered the North made it more likely that the North and the South would go to war with each other.
When Taney made the decision to rule against Dred Scott's citizenship, it was more than robbing him of his citizenship. Taney proceeded to not only insult Scott, but the entire race of African Americans. Taney continued to say that no matter where you were in the United States, even if it was the North, that every law regulating slavery in the United States was nullified. The Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) case definately made tensions between the North and South greater than before and brought the civil war on faster. This was a slap in the face for the Northen states who were against slavery and now there was no safe place for African Americans to go to. The civil war was bound to happen either way, but by insulting the Northern states rights and a race of people it only made matters worse in the United States.
The Dred Scott V. Sandford decision certainly may have hastened then onset of the Civil war but not to any significant time because the decision outraged Northerners and supported the southerners. The reason I think this is because the South seceded from the North and they were the ones to take up arms so even without this decision the southerners still would wanted to separate from the North i believe if the decision would have went the other way it may have brought the war even sooner because the south would have totally disagreed with the law
Will Aldam I think this ruling by the supreme court not only jump started the civil war, but also made it unavoidable. Chief Justice Taney based his ruling completely on his own thoughts and ideas rather than what the constitution states. He showed so much racism in his ruling with the words he spoke, which really showed the corruption with the judicial branch in the US at the time. This is clearly a red flag and really made it clear that there would only be one way to officially abolish slavery, war. How else can you put an end to something unjust with a corrupt government? And to add on to the blatant racism, Taney said that the states that didnt have the right to choose to be free or slave states now could choose. I think what this did was disrupt the balance between the slave and free states in the Senate which absolutely added tension within congress itself. Without a doubt the ruling on the Dred Scott case brought us closer to the start of the Civil War.
Taney's decision to tule against Dred Scott's citizenship was a slap in the face to Scott and all African Americans. His rule that Dred Scott was property even if he went to free states in the North. I believe that Dred Scott V. Sandford did hasten the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861 because the Northern states were insulted by the fact that Taney made the decisions for their free states.
Connor Killian Taney decided in the Dred Scott vs Sanford case that all blacks (slaves or not) could never become citizens of the United States. This definitely made things more tense between the north and south, and only helped the Civil War to start. This was an outrage to northern states that were against slavery and African Americans wouldn't be secure anywhere in the United States. The decision in this case had a major impact on instigating the CIvil War.
The 1820 Missouri Compromise was issued to balance the competing viewpoints of pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces. Chief Justice Taney’s ruling in the case of Dred Scott v. Standford declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and ruled against Scott’s citizenship. This immensely increased tensions between the North and the South over the issue of slavery and fueled the abolitionist movement. The decision of the Dred Scott case also quickened the outbreak of the Civil War. The start of the Civil War in 1861 proved that Taney’s decision had failed.
The supreme court case of Dred Scott v. Stanford definitely brought on the American Civil War quicker then anyone could have predicted. When Chief justice Taney attempted to avoid disagreements between the North and the South, he brought on more opposition then ever. When Taney ruled against Scott, he aggravated the North tremendously. Taney's decision to rule against Scott and declare him still a slave in a free state, insulted the North so severely that although the civil war was to happen eventually, he sped up the process immensely.
The decision in the Dred Scott V. Sandford Chief Justice Taney was clearly raciest and unjust which enraged the Northern states that rose the tensions between the North and South . This most definitely brought the civil war on sooner. Although the war would have eventually happened, the remarks made by Taney and his decision to allow slavery in every state made the people from the North felt that their rights and rules had been completely infringed on and violated. Each side was bubbling with disagreement and tension with the courts ruling with made the Civil war come quicker. - Bella Sinsigalli
Roger B. Taney’s decision to put personal prejudices over the law as explicitly outlined in the U.S. Constitution ended the 80-year period in Congress of compromise regarding slavery (E.g. The Missouri Compromise and The compromise of 1850). Dred Scott Vs. Sanford ended the notion of “free” and “slave” states in one fell swoop. While there are a plethora of causes for the secession of the south and Civil War that followed, Taney’s decision certainly helped to expedite the inevitable. His petty racist forced his beloved south into a war that they were ill equipped to fight and economic repercussions that lasted for decades.
Greg Rose The fact that the Dred Scott case existed significantly hastened the Civil War as it brought a case of African American citizenship to the supreme court. However, I do not believe that the decision hastened the south seceding from the union as quickly as an opposite ruling could have done. Without a doubt, the ruling raised tensions between the North and South by basically declaring slavery legal in non slave states, however if Taney had ruled that Dred Scott was, in fact, a citizen, then the decision to outlaw slavery could very well have happened even sooner. This would have hastened the outbreak of the civil war more so than the actual decision as the south would have seceded from the union earlier than they actually did.
Sam Woodcock Although the tension between slave states (south) and non slave states (north) existed well before the ruling of Dred Scott vs. Sanford, Roger B. Taney's decision made the secession of the south come in a shorter amount of time. The secession of the south was inevitable even without this case. But, Because Roger B. Taney based his final decision, that there were no longer slave states and non slave states, solely on personal beliefs as a souther man and not on the constitution of the United States, the secession came much quicker.
Jack O'Donoghue The Dred Scott v Sanford case was one of the early causes of the Civil War. The Compromise of 1820 and the Missouri Compromise of 1850 both created a divided union between the North and the South. Then Roger Taney made the very racist decision that no slave could be a citizen,Congress can not pass laws that regulate slavery in states and Congress can not deprive people of their property no matter where they take it. This shocked the North and created a lot of anger and hate toward the South, because Taney took it too far. If he had only ruled on the case and not added his decision about voiding all Federal Laws restricting slavery in the states, the case would not have hastened the outbreak of the Civil War.
The Dred Scott vs. Sanford case undeniably hastened the approach of the civil war by amplifying the already tense argument on the topic of slavery that had formed a separation between the Northern and Southern states. The time that the case was in court was during the political campaign of 1856, this event heightened the media attention on the case. This caused a huge response in the news and in the general public when the case was decided. The North was outraged by Chief Justice Taney's decision while the in South, Taney's reasoning was praised. The case became a highly disputed issue. Taney's decision to declare the Missouri compromise unconstitutional also intensified the conflict pushing the Country to war because as Maisie said "The 1820 Missouri Compromise was issued to balance the competing viewpoints", without this compromise the balance between the North and South was lost.
In a desperate attempt to repress the growing animosity between the north and the south before the civil war, congress signed the land ordinance to clarify boundaries of opinionated states and create sanctuaries for freed slaves. Dred Scott fought in court to retain his freedom that he claimed to have earned from his residency in a free state. Taney's decision stated that Dred Scott was "property" regardless of where he resides. Taney's decision absolutely amplified the anti-slavery feelings of the north, which in turn, sped the approach of the civil war.
The Dred Scott v. Standford case is a landmark in America’s history. The Untied States is known for the motto "all men are equal," but according to Chief Justice Roger B. Taney African Americans were not included in this statement. The subject on slavery and black’s freedom created tension throughout the North and South for many years. Taney refused to grant Scott his freedom because he believed that blacks should not have the right to gain citizenship. This conflict is a key example of the disagreement between the North and the South. The Dred Scott v. Standford case created additional tension between the two regions, which ultimately led to the eruption of the Civil War in 1861.
There is no doubt that the supreme courts decision for the case of Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) sped up the process that lead to the Civil War. The Civil War was a necessary and unavoidable event in American History. Many events and people helped bring on the war, but the supreme courts ruling made the Civil War occur quicker than anyone expected. This ruling was a perfect example of the typical American ignorance and selfishness towards the subject of slavery, and equal rights. And it proved that a Civil War was necessary for the prosperity of this nation. The Civil War would have happened without this case, but this case defiantly contributed to the out break of the Civil War
The Dred Scott Case was basically one of the tools that ignited the civil war in 1861. The supreme court said that Dred Scott was property even if he went to a free state because The Missouri Comprise of 1820. The event gave fire to the torch and it could of been avoided if the supreme court ruled unity and equality for all.
The ruling on the Dred Scott v. Sandford case indisputably brought the Civil War sooner. This case fused the tension between the North and the South. It sparked hope for the northerners and other African Americans, and it enraged Southerners who were livid someone could ever fathom the idea of an African American being a citizen. The ruling on this case only further alienated and divide the United States. While Chief Justice Taney pleased the South, he outraged the Northerners and African American through his crude tasteless comments regarding the inferiority of African Americans; on the other hand, Justice Curtis (and McClean) completely contradicted Taney. This showed Americans that Taney's opinion was not the only opinion and that there was still hope for change. Since Taney's opinion was opposed, his word did not seem final, it showed not everybody agreed with him. All of this heated up the United States and definitely brought the Civil War on sooner.
The Compromise of 1820 and the Missouri Compromise(1850) created a divided union, North and South. The supreme court wouldn't rule on equality for all there's no doubt that the civil war was bound to happen. Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) was a major event that help send it into over drive. Taney's decided to go against what the laws said and made decision of his own and referred to free slaves as "property" no matter were they lived. This goes to show the ignorance and stupidity of people which is still going on today. The remarks made and decisions by Taney created a greater tension between the north and south, and the pretty much unavoidable(civil war) eventually happen.
The Dred Scott v. Sanford case declared that once an African American was a slave, they would always be a slave no matter where they travel to. Having Slavery be legal in all Federal territories was a slap in the face to the rising republican party and the abolitionists who supported Scott in his case were clearly infuriate. The way Taney blatantly used his own racist opinion to decide Scotts case was enough to upset any abolishonist in the North. Because of this case, tension grew even more between the North and the south and even though the Civil war would have happened anyway, The case definatly sparked the civil war quicker.
One of the major reasons for the Civil War in 1861 was racism in general. Because of racism and slavery, the country was split into two halves, the racist, slave owning south, and the north where slavery was illegal. When Taney ruled against Dred Scott, he referred to Scott as property and therefore allowing Sanford to keep Scott as a Slave in a free territory. This ruling angered northern abolitionists who believed slavery was wrong because it allowed Sanford to have a slave in the northern state of Illinois. The Racism that Taney displayed through the case raised further tensions with Northerners, thus leading to the outbreak of the civil war.
The Supreme Court Decision of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) did hasten the outbreak of the American Civil war in 1861. This decision declared that Congress had no power to stop slavery in the federal territories; this affected the legitimacy of the Republican Part and made the conflict of slavery intensify, causing a major controversy. This played a pivatol part in events, which lead the Civil War.
The decision of the supreme court in the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) was a decision that brought the Civil War quicker that expected. This is because Taney's decision angered the north because he essentially said a slave was a slave in any state. This decision by Taney basically said that every state had the potential to be a slave state. The North was angered by this, and even though the Civil War was inevitable for our country, Taney's decision brought on the Civil War years earlier than most would have expected. -Jared Shatkin
The states, because of the rising tension between them on various issues including the issue of slavery, were already on the brink of a civil war. Therefore, the decision of the Scott Vs Sandford case was not what hastened the American civil war, but a factor in succession leading up to the civil war. There were other factors involved along with the court's decision that led to the civil war. Take Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin", John Brown's raid, and the fugitive slave act included in the compromise of 1850 into account as well as the Scott Vs Sandford case's decision. These elements were all factors that led to the outbreak of the civil war.
The decision by the Supreme Court most definitely helped provoke the out break of the American Civil War. Taney ruled saying, "......We think they [people of African ancestry] are... not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution...". Due to the fact that Scott was deemed property, this case set the precedent allowing all slaves to remain slaves even in the free, northern states. This did not sit well with the north because they were fighting for equality. Taney and the Supreme court also said that Congress did not have the power to pass laws regulating slavery in states. The Missouri Compromise was then voided. This also angered the north because the free versus slave boundary was no longer in existence. This lead to the Civil war between the north and the south. Nick O'Connor
The Supreme Court Decision of Dred Scott v Sandford, did hasten the Civil War for many reasons. As the north and the south were already on their way to beginning war because of the disagreement regarding slavery, this case only made it worse.Taney stated that African American people were not to be included as citizens under the constitution. This meant that slaves would remain as slaves even if they were in the free states. The north was not pleased with this as they felt it would infringe on their ability to stay as free states. Because of Taney's decision, the Civil War came on much quicker than people believed.
The Dred Scott v. Sanford case declared that once a slave was owned they were property to the people who bought them. If the slaves ran away to a free state, and they were found, they had to be brought back to their life as a slave. Also the former processes of incorporating a free sate and a slave state into the union at the same time to keep the balance in congress was ended and slavery was allowed to exist in all the formerly free territories. This may hastened the onset of the civil war by enraging the North; however, if the decision would have went the other it may have enraged the South and brought the civil war on even sooner because they wouldn't have given up slavery peacefully.
The Dred Scott V Sandford (1857) case most definitely cracked the egg of the civil war. At the time the North had their free states and the south had their slave states. When Taney said "We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution..." he is denying the right of being a citizen to all African Americans and saying that they should be considered "property" no matter where they are transported. This comment sparked an extreme disgust from the people of the North, such as the abolitionists, because of his blatant racist decision which was putting all of their hard work to shreds. It also ruined the North's power to have their free states and voided the compromise of 1820. - Robbie Fiamengo
The case Scott v. Sandford, was the last straw of the tension building up to the Civil War. The decision made to hear the case Scott v. Sandford acknowledged the citizenship of Scott in the state of Missouri. Scott attempted to argue his freedom based off of living in the free state of Illinois in the Louisiana Territory. Residing in a state where slavery is illegal made Scott a freed slave, and therefore going back to a slave state makes him also a freed slave. The argument present by Scott is that the Full Faith and Credit Clause is clearly violated, which is conflicting with the Constitution making it blatantly illegal in all states. Taney's ruling on the case making the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, also makes the Full Faith and Credit Clause invalid, and makes the decision of Taney's unconstitutional itself. The choice of hearing the case and putting the idea of slavery to rest backfired completely, and raised the tension of the Union and the Confederate states to the highest it had ever been. Taney's decision ultimately resulted in the start of the Civil War.
The Dred Scott Case was basically one of the tools that ignited the civil war in 1861. The supreme court said that Dred Scott was property even if he went to a free state because The Missouri Comprise and Taney's decision. The event gave fire to the torch and it could of been avoided if the supreme court ruled unity and equality for all. Taney ruled that even though Scott went to a free state he wasn't free because he was someone's property still and under the constitution he was counted less then a man
The Dred Scott Decision was a pivotal breaking point in the United States prior to the Civil War. First, by the Supreme Court hearing the case it indirectly stated the Dred Scott, a slave, was in fact a citizen of the United States, which contradicts Taney’s later statement, “We think they are…not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution and can there claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States”. The ruling stands that Scott was not a citizen and therefore not a free man, making him a piece of property. This recognized that the Court couldn’t deprive someone of their property no matter where they take it, which refers to the full faith and credit clause. Secondly, this decision was the first made by the Supreme Court that overturned federal legislation. It demonstrated that Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in any state and consequently deepened the conflict over slavery in the United States. In conclusion, the ruling of this case angered many abolitionists and others, and also, due to the voided legislation created a distrust between the American people and the Republican government, in turn sparking the tinder for the Civil War.
Tyler Behring- Yes the decision of Dred Scott V. Stanford helped lead to the outbreak of the Civil War. Taney's decision, although it was meant to stop the arguing, helped lead to the Civil War. The decision made to hear the case meant that Dred Scott had to be a citizen of the state of Missouri. A free slave is now required to be a slave and returned back to their old life. This is in violation of the full faith and credit clause, making this decision unconstitutional. Also, Taney said that the slaves could never be free no matter what state they were in, which angered the Northerners and led to the civil war. The decision to make the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional was unconstitutional itself because it also violated the Full faith and credit clause. Taney's decision to hear this case led to the civil war, because by hearing the case it showed that Dred Scott was a Citizen, but then Taney contradicted him self and said he wasn't and could never be. In conclusion this case angered the Northerns and led to the Civil War.
During the Dred Scott case of (1857) Roger B. Taney's and the supreme courts decision that African Americans could not be citizens and that the constitution only pertained to white citizens brought tension between the two powers. Taney ruled that because Scott was technically private property that freeing him would violate the fifth amendment. The supreme court failed to come to a comprise that would please both the North and the South and bring unity to a new country. The Dred Scott decision was clearly a major reasoning for the forth coming of the Civil War.
The Decision made in the case, Dred Scott v. Sandford, ruled that slaves will not be citizens, and will always remain somebody's property no matter where they are taken. "They have for more then...... for his benefit...." America has been for so long passively allowed slaves to be part of everyday life, some states wanted slavery while others felt strongly against them. Although the case wasn't won by Dred Scott, it put into perspective the ideals of the judges and people of power in this country. We built America out of oppression from England, and the hypocrocy that comes with owning slaves is abominable. This case also helps demonstrate that even though we are a more "mature" country, our views were still the same. This was one of the causes of the Civil War and in my opinion one of the only wars "Worth fighting for." -Fortenbaugh
The Dred Scott v. Standford case is a landmark in America’s history. The Untied States is known for the motto "all men are equal," but according to Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, African Americans were not included in this statement. The issue on slavery and black’s freedom produced tension between the North and South. Taney refused to grant Scott his freedom because he believed that African American’s should not have the right to gain citizenship. The final ruling of the case was that Scott was not only free man but a piece of property. This case established that the Congress did not have the right to prohibit slavery within the states. The conflict angered many individuals and violated the federal legislation. The Dred Scott v. Standford case created additional tension on the subject, which ultimately led to the eruption of the Civil War in 1861.
In the Dred Scott court Case the Supreme Court definitely was a huge contributor in the start of the American Civil War. Due to the fact Scott was "property", the case set the precedent that allowed all slaves to reman slaves even in the free north. The north did not like this because of the fact they were fighting for equality. Taney in the case said that Congress didn't have the power to pass any laws having to due with slavery in states. Proceeding that, the Missouri Compromise was voided, angering the north even further because free versus slave boundaries no longer existed. The accumulation of all these issues eventually lead to the start of the Civil war in 1860.
Because of the Roger B. Taney's and the supreme courts decision that African America could not be citizens and that the constitution only pertained to white citizens. this decision light the already burning fuse between the North and South which definitely hastened the first shot of the Civil War. The supreme court failed to come to a comprise that would please both the North and the South and bring unity to a new country.
ReplyDeleteJoe Pezza
Katie Moffett
ReplyDeleteThe case Dred Scott v. Sandford is one of the most important in American History. A slave from Missouri was trying to win his freedom from his owner John Emerson. The question that arose was if he was still going to be a slave even though he lived in a free state. Roger B. Taney was the supreme court justice in this case, and Scott lost. Taney was hoping his decision would put an end to the arguments about slavery but in fact made them worse. The supreme court couldn't accommodate both the North's and South's view. It was a very big influence as to why the American Civil War started.
Bryan Bohaty
ReplyDeleteThe ruling of Dred Scot v. Sanford undoutably brought the Civil War on sooner. Abolitionists in the north would have been infuriated by the ruling, not only becuase slavery was now unregulated and could spread acorss the country, but because Taney strayed from the law so clearly in his opinion. He degrads African Americans as "unfit to associate with the white race", no where in the Constitution does it say this, that was his own racism interfering with his duty as a Supreme Court Justice.
The case and ruling of Dred Scott v. Sandford absolutely brought on the Civil War quicker than it would have happened naturally. Chief Justice Taney was hoping that he would be able to help put to rest issues between the north and south with his ruling, but instead brought on more intense feelings of hatred inside the country. Taney saying that essentially slaves were still slaves in any state angered the North made it more likely that the North and the South would go to war with each other.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Bernstein
Hattie Waldron
ReplyDeleteWhen Taney made the decision to rule against Dred Scott's citizenship, it was more than robbing him of his citizenship. Taney proceeded to not only insult Scott, but the entire race of African Americans. Taney continued to say that no matter where you were in the United States, even if it was the North, that every law regulating slavery in the United States was nullified. The Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) case definately made tensions between the North and South greater than before and brought the civil war on faster. This was a slap in the face for the Northen states who were against slavery and now there was no safe place for African Americans to go to. The civil war was bound to happen either way, but by insulting the Northern states rights and a race of people it only made matters worse in the United States.
The Dred Scott V. Sandford decision certainly may have hastened then onset of the Civil war but not to any significant time because the decision outraged Northerners and supported the southerners. The reason I think this is because the South seceded from the North and they were the ones to take up arms so even without this decision the southerners still would wanted to separate from the North i believe if the decision would have went the other way it may have brought the war even sooner because the south would have totally disagreed with the law
ReplyDelete- Mark Nordhausen
Will Aldam
ReplyDeleteI think this ruling by the supreme court not only jump started the civil war, but also made it unavoidable. Chief Justice Taney based his ruling completely on his own thoughts and ideas rather than what the constitution states. He showed so much racism in his ruling with the words he spoke, which really showed the corruption with the judicial branch in the US at the time. This is clearly a red flag and really made it clear that there would only be one way to officially abolish slavery, war. How else can you put an end to something unjust with a corrupt government? And to add on to the blatant racism, Taney said that the states that didnt have the right to choose to be free or slave states now could choose. I think what this did was disrupt the balance between the slave and free states in the Senate which absolutely added tension within congress itself. Without a doubt the ruling on the Dred Scott case brought us closer to the start of the Civil War.
Taney's decision to tule against Dred Scott's citizenship was a slap in the face to Scott and all African Americans. His rule that Dred Scott was property even if he went to free states in the North. I believe that Dred Scott V. Sandford did hasten the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861 because the Northern states were insulted by the fact that Taney made the decisions for their free states.
ReplyDelete-Jared Shatkin
Mr. Gulotta I meant to say rule not tule I'm sorry.
Delete-Jared Shatkin
Connor Killian
ReplyDeleteTaney decided in the Dred Scott vs Sanford case that all blacks (slaves or not) could never become citizens of the United States. This definitely made things more tense between the north and south, and only helped the Civil War to start. This was an outrage to northern states that were against slavery and African Americans wouldn't be secure anywhere in the United States. The decision in this case had a major impact on instigating the CIvil War.
Maisie Noesen
ReplyDeleteThe 1820 Missouri Compromise was issued to balance the competing viewpoints of pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces. Chief Justice Taney’s ruling in the case of Dred Scott v. Standford declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and ruled against Scott’s citizenship. This immensely increased tensions between the North and the South over the issue of slavery and fueled the abolitionist movement. The decision of the Dred Scott case also quickened the outbreak of the Civil War. The start of the Civil War in 1861 proved that Taney’s decision had failed.
The supreme court case of Dred Scott v. Stanford definitely brought on the American Civil War quicker then anyone could have predicted. When Chief justice Taney attempted to avoid disagreements between the North and the South, he brought on more opposition then ever. When Taney ruled against Scott, he aggravated the North tremendously. Taney's decision to rule against Scott and declare him still a slave in a free state, insulted the North so severely that although the civil war was to happen eventually, he sped up the process immensely.
ReplyDeleteAllison Bliven
The decision in the Dred Scott V. Sandford Chief Justice Taney was clearly raciest and unjust which enraged the Northern states that rose the tensions between the North and South . This most definitely brought the civil war on sooner. Although the war would have eventually happened, the remarks made by Taney and his decision to allow slavery in every state made the people from the North felt that their rights and rules had been completely infringed on and violated. Each side was bubbling with disagreement and tension with the courts ruling with made the Civil war come quicker.
ReplyDelete- Bella Sinsigalli
Haden Cosman
ReplyDeleteRoger B. Taney’s decision to put personal prejudices over the law as explicitly outlined in the U.S. Constitution ended the 80-year period in Congress of compromise regarding slavery (E.g. The Missouri Compromise and The compromise of 1850). Dred Scott Vs. Sanford ended the notion of “free” and “slave” states in one fell swoop. While there are a plethora of causes for the secession of the south and Civil War that followed, Taney’s decision certainly helped to expedite the inevitable. His petty racist forced his beloved south into a war that they were ill equipped to fight and economic repercussions that lasted for decades.
Greg Rose
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the Dred Scott case existed significantly hastened the Civil War as it brought a case of African American citizenship to the supreme court. However, I do not believe that the decision hastened the south seceding from the union as quickly as an opposite ruling could have done. Without a doubt, the ruling raised tensions between the North and South by basically declaring slavery legal in non slave states, however if Taney had ruled that Dred Scott was, in fact, a citizen, then the decision to outlaw slavery could very well have happened even sooner. This would have hastened the outbreak of the civil war more so than the actual decision as the south would have seceded from the union earlier than they actually did.
Sam Woodcock
ReplyDeleteAlthough the tension between slave states (south) and non slave states (north) existed well before the ruling of Dred Scott vs. Sanford, Roger B. Taney's decision made the secession of the south come in a shorter amount of time. The secession of the south was inevitable even without this case. But, Because Roger B. Taney based his final decision, that there were no longer slave states and non slave states, solely on personal beliefs as a souther man and not on the constitution of the United States, the secession came much quicker.
Jack O'Donoghue
ReplyDeleteThe Dred Scott v Sanford case was one of the early causes of the Civil War. The Compromise of 1820 and the Missouri Compromise of 1850 both created a divided union between the North and the South. Then Roger Taney made the very racist decision that no slave could be a citizen,Congress can not pass laws that regulate slavery in states and Congress can not deprive people of their property no matter where they take it. This shocked the North and created a lot of anger and hate toward the South, because Taney took it too far. If he had only ruled on the case and not added his decision about voiding all Federal Laws restricting slavery in the states, the case would not have hastened the outbreak of the Civil War.
The Dred Scott vs. Sanford case undeniably hastened the approach of the civil war by amplifying the already tense argument on the topic of slavery that had formed a separation between the Northern and Southern states.
ReplyDeleteThe time that the case was in court was during the political campaign of 1856, this event heightened the media attention on the case. This caused a huge response in the news and in the general public when the case was decided. The North was outraged by Chief Justice Taney's decision while the in South, Taney's reasoning was praised. The case became a highly disputed issue. Taney's decision to declare the Missouri compromise unconstitutional also intensified the conflict pushing the Country to war because as Maisie said "The 1820 Missouri Compromise was issued to balance the competing viewpoints", without this compromise the balance between the North and South was lost.
Thomas Benfield
ReplyDeleteIn a desperate attempt to repress the growing animosity between the north and the south before the civil war, congress signed the land ordinance to clarify boundaries of opinionated states and create sanctuaries for freed slaves. Dred Scott fought in court to retain his freedom that he claimed to have earned from his residency in a free state. Taney's decision stated that Dred Scott was "property" regardless of where he resides. Taney's decision absolutely amplified the anti-slavery feelings of the north, which in turn, sped the approach of the civil war.
The Dred Scott v. Standford case is a landmark in America’s history. The Untied States is known for the motto "all men are equal," but according to Chief Justice Roger B. Taney African Americans were not included in this statement. The subject on slavery and black’s freedom created tension throughout the North and South for many years. Taney refused to grant Scott his freedom because he believed that blacks should not have the right to gain citizenship. This conflict is a key example of the disagreement between the North and the South. The Dred Scott v. Standford case created additional tension between the two regions, which ultimately led to the eruption of the Civil War in 1861.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that the supreme courts decision for the case of Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) sped up the process that lead to the Civil War. The Civil War was a necessary and unavoidable event in American History. Many events and people helped bring on the war, but the supreme courts ruling made the Civil War occur quicker than anyone expected. This ruling was a perfect example of the typical American ignorance and selfishness towards the subject of slavery, and equal rights. And it proved that a Civil War was necessary for the prosperity of this nation. The Civil War would have happened without this case, but this case defiantly contributed to the out break of the Civil War
ReplyDeleteHayden Dunham
Eric Samuel
ReplyDeleteThe Dred Scott Case was basically one of the tools that ignited the civil war in 1861. The supreme court said that Dred Scott was property even if he went to a free state because The Missouri Comprise of 1820. The event gave fire to the torch and it could of been avoided if the supreme court ruled unity and equality for all.
The ruling on the Dred Scott v. Sandford case indisputably brought the Civil War sooner. This case fused the tension between the North and the South. It sparked hope for the northerners and other African Americans, and it enraged Southerners who were livid someone could ever fathom the idea of an African American being a citizen. The ruling on this case only further alienated and divide the United States. While Chief Justice Taney pleased the South, he outraged the Northerners and African American through his crude tasteless comments regarding the inferiority of African Americans; on the other hand, Justice Curtis (and McClean) completely contradicted Taney. This showed Americans that Taney's opinion was not the only opinion and that there was still hope for change. Since Taney's opinion was opposed, his word did not seem final, it showed not everybody agreed with him. All of this heated up the United States and definitely brought the Civil War on sooner.
ReplyDelete-Kira von Steinbergs
The Compromise of 1820 and the Missouri Compromise(1850) created a divided union, North and South. The supreme court wouldn't rule on equality for all there's no doubt that the civil war was bound to happen. Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) was a major event that help send it into over drive. Taney's decided to go against what the laws said and made decision of his own and referred to free slaves as "property" no matter were they lived. This goes to show the ignorance and stupidity of people which is still going on today. The remarks made and decisions by Taney created a greater tension between the north and south, and the pretty much unavoidable(civil war) eventually happen.
ReplyDeleteMarquis Carr
Miles Busby
ReplyDeleteThe Dred Scott v. Sanford case declared that once an African American
was a slave, they would always be a slave no matter where they travel
to. Having Slavery be legal in all Federal territories was a slap in
the face to the rising republican party and the abolitionists who
supported Scott in his case were clearly infuriate. The way Taney
blatantly used his own racist opinion to decide Scotts case was enough
to upset any abolishonist in the North. Because of this case, tension
grew even more between the North and the south and even though the
Civil war would have happened anyway, The case definatly sparked the
civil war quicker.
George Frick
ReplyDeleteOne of the major reasons for the Civil War in 1861 was racism in general. Because of racism and slavery, the country was split into two halves, the racist, slave owning south, and the north where slavery was illegal. When Taney ruled against Dred Scott, he referred to Scott as property and therefore allowing Sanford to keep Scott as a Slave in a free territory. This ruling angered northern abolitionists who believed slavery was wrong because it allowed Sanford to have a slave in the northern state of Illinois. The Racism that Taney displayed through the case raised further tensions with Northerners, thus leading to the outbreak of the civil war.
Jack Fox
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court Decision of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) did hasten the outbreak of the American Civil war in 1861. This decision declared that Congress had no power to stop slavery in the federal territories; this affected the legitimacy of the Republican Part and made the conflict of slavery intensify, causing a major controversy. This played a pivatol part in events, which lead the Civil War.
The decision of the supreme court in the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) was a decision that brought the Civil War quicker that expected. This is because Taney's decision angered the north because he essentially said a slave was a slave in any state. This decision by Taney basically said that every state had the potential to be a slave state. The North was angered by this, and even though the Civil War was inevitable for our country, Taney's decision brought on the Civil War years earlier than most would have expected.
ReplyDelete-Jared Shatkin
The states, because of the rising tension between them on various issues including the issue of slavery, were already on the brink of a civil war. Therefore, the decision of the Scott Vs Sandford case was not what hastened the American civil war, but a factor in succession leading up to the civil war. There were other factors involved along with the court's decision that led to the civil war. Take Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin", John Brown's raid, and the fugitive slave act included in the compromise of 1850 into account as well as the Scott Vs Sandford case's decision. These elements were all factors that led to the outbreak of the civil war.
ReplyDeleteKimberley Henry
The decision by the Supreme Court most definitely helped provoke the out break of the American Civil War. Taney ruled saying, "......We think they [people of African ancestry] are... not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution...". Due to the fact that Scott was deemed property, this case set the precedent allowing all slaves to remain slaves even in the free, northern states. This did not sit well with the north because they were fighting for equality. Taney and the Supreme court also said that Congress did not have the power to pass laws regulating slavery in states. The Missouri Compromise was then voided. This also angered the north because the free versus slave boundary was no longer in existence. This lead to the Civil war between the north and the south.
ReplyDeleteNick O'Connor
The Supreme Court Decision of Dred Scott v Sandford, did hasten the Civil War for many reasons. As the north and the south were already on their way to beginning war because of the disagreement regarding slavery, this case only made it worse.Taney stated that African American people were not to be included as citizens under the constitution. This meant that slaves would remain as slaves even if they were in the free states. The north was not pleased with this as they felt it would infringe on their ability to stay as free states. Because of Taney's decision, the Civil War came on much quicker than people believed.
ReplyDeleteMurphy Newman
The Dred Scott v. Sanford case declared that once a slave was owned they were property to the people who bought them. If the slaves ran away to a free state, and they were found, they had to be brought back to their life as a slave. Also the former processes of incorporating a free sate and a slave state into the union at the same time to keep the balance in congress was ended and slavery was allowed to exist in all the formerly free territories. This may hastened the onset of the civil war by enraging the North; however, if the decision would have went the other it may have enraged the South and brought the civil war on even sooner because they wouldn't have given up slavery peacefully.
ReplyDeleteThe Dred Scott V Sandford (1857) case most definitely cracked the egg of the civil war. At the time the North had their free states and the south had their slave states. When Taney said "We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution..." he is denying the right of being a citizen to all African Americans and saying that they should be considered "property" no matter where they are transported. This comment sparked an extreme disgust from the people of the North, such as the abolitionists, because of his blatant racist decision which was putting all of their hard work to shreds. It also ruined the North's power to have their free states and voided the compromise of 1820.
ReplyDelete- Robbie Fiamengo
The case Scott v. Sandford, was the last straw of the tension building up to the Civil War. The decision made to hear the case Scott v. Sandford acknowledged the citizenship of Scott in the state of Missouri. Scott attempted to argue his freedom based off of living in the free state of Illinois in the Louisiana Territory. Residing in a state where slavery is illegal made Scott a freed slave, and therefore going back to a slave state makes him also a freed slave. The argument present by Scott is that the Full Faith and Credit Clause is clearly violated, which is conflicting with the Constitution making it blatantly illegal in all states. Taney's ruling on the case making the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, also makes the Full Faith and Credit Clause invalid, and makes the decision of Taney's unconstitutional itself. The choice of hearing the case and putting the idea of slavery to rest backfired completely, and raised the tension of the Union and the Confederate states to the highest it had ever been. Taney's decision ultimately resulted in the start of the Civil War.
ReplyDelete--Will Knight
Eric Samuel
ReplyDeleteThe Dred Scott Case was basically one of the tools that ignited the civil war in 1861. The supreme court said that Dred Scott was property even if he went to a free state because The Missouri Comprise and Taney's decision. The event gave fire to the torch and it could of been avoided if the supreme court ruled unity and equality for all. Taney ruled that even though Scott went to a free state he wasn't free because he was someone's property still and under the constitution he was counted less then a man
The Dred Scott Decision was a pivotal breaking point in the United States prior to the Civil War. First, by the Supreme Court hearing the case it indirectly stated the Dred Scott, a slave, was in fact a citizen of the United States, which contradicts Taney’s later statement, “We think they are…not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution and can there claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States”. The ruling stands that Scott was not a citizen and therefore not a free man, making him a piece of property. This recognized that the Court couldn’t deprive someone of their property no matter where they take it, which refers to the full faith and credit clause. Secondly, this decision was the first made by the Supreme Court that overturned federal legislation. It demonstrated that Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in any state and consequently deepened the conflict over slavery in the United States. In conclusion, the ruling of this case angered many abolitionists and others, and also, due to the voided legislation created a distrust between the American people and the Republican government, in turn sparking the tinder for the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteTyler Behring- Yes the decision of Dred Scott V. Stanford helped lead to the outbreak of the Civil War. Taney's decision, although it was meant to stop the arguing, helped lead to the Civil War. The decision made to hear the case meant that Dred Scott had to be a citizen of the state of Missouri. A free slave is now required to be a slave and returned back to their old life. This is in violation of the full faith and credit clause, making this decision unconstitutional. Also, Taney said that the slaves could never be free no matter what state they were in, which angered the Northerners and led to the civil war. The decision to make the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional was unconstitutional itself because it also violated the Full faith and credit clause. Taney's decision to hear this case led to the civil war, because by hearing the case it showed that Dred Scott was a Citizen, but then Taney contradicted him self and said he wasn't and could never be. In conclusion this case angered the Northerns and led to the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Dred Scott case of (1857) Roger B. Taney's and the supreme courts decision that African Americans could not be citizens and that the constitution only pertained to white citizens brought tension between the two powers. Taney ruled that because Scott was technically private property that freeing him would violate the fifth amendment. The supreme court failed to come to a comprise that would please both the North and the South and bring unity to a new country. The Dred Scott decision was clearly a major reasoning for the forth coming of the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteJoe Pezza
The Decision made in the case, Dred Scott v. Sandford, ruled that slaves will not be citizens, and will always remain somebody's property no matter where they are taken. "They have for more then...... for his benefit...." America has been for so long passively allowed slaves to be part of everyday life, some states wanted slavery while others felt strongly against them. Although the case wasn't won by Dred Scott, it put into perspective the ideals of the judges and people of power in this country. We built America out of oppression from England, and the hypocrocy that comes with owning slaves is abominable. This case also helps demonstrate that even though we are a more "mature" country, our views were still the same. This was one of the causes of the Civil War and in my opinion one of the only wars "Worth fighting for."
ReplyDelete-Fortenbaugh
The Dred Scott v. Standford case is a landmark in America’s history. The Untied States is known for the motto "all men are equal," but according to Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, African Americans were not included in this statement. The issue on slavery and black’s freedom produced tension between the North and South. Taney refused to grant Scott his freedom because he believed that African American’s should not have the right to gain citizenship. The final ruling of the case was that Scott was not only free man but a piece of property. This case established that the Congress did not have the right to prohibit slavery within the states. The conflict angered many individuals and violated the federal legislation. The Dred Scott v. Standford case created additional tension on the subject, which ultimately led to the eruption of the Civil War in 1861.
ReplyDeleteIn the Dred Scott court Case the Supreme Court definitely was a huge contributor in the start of the American Civil War. Due to the fact Scott was "property", the case set the precedent that allowed all slaves to reman slaves even in the free north. The north did not like this because of the fact they were fighting for equality. Taney in the case said that Congress didn't have the power to pass any laws having to due with slavery in states. Proceeding that, the Missouri Compromise was voided, angering the north even further because free versus slave boundaries no longer existed. The accumulation of all these issues eventually lead to the start of the Civil war in 1860.
ReplyDeleteChris Gaynor