{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Sectional Conflic3 - was not a citizen that the laws of a...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Sectional Conflict Slavery, sectionalism sow seeds of war Meanwhile, the flow of both Southern slave holders and antislavery families into Kansas  resulted in armed conflict.  Soon the territory was being called "bleeding Kansas."  The  Supreme Court made things worse with its infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision. Scott was a Missouri slave who, some 20 years earlier, had been taken by his master to  live in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory; in both places, slavery was banned.   Returning to Missouri and becoming discontented with his life there, Scott sued for  liberation on the ground of his residence on free soil.  A majority of the Supreme Court –  dominated by Southerners – decided that Scott lacked standing in court because he 
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: was not a citizen; that the laws of a free state (Illinois) had no effect on his status because he was the resident of a slave state (Missouri); and that slave holders had the right to take their "property" anywhere in the federal territories. Thus, Congress could not restrict the expansion of slavery. This last assertion invalidated former compromises on slavery and made new ones impossible to craft. The Dred Scott decision stirred fierce resentment throughout the North. Never before had the Court been so bitterly condemned. For Southern Democrats, the decision was a great victory, since it gave judicial sanction to their justification of slavery throughout the territories....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online