12. 19th Feb - Dred Scott
Dred Scott & the Crisis of the 1850s – Study Notes
I. Background: Expansion & Sectional Tension
Mexican Cession (Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848)
U.S. gained vast western territories.
Immediate question: Would new territories allow slavery?
California Gold Rush (1849)
Rapid population growth → California applied for statehood (1850) as a free state.
Triggered sectional crisis (similar to Missouri Compromise).
II. Compromise of 1850
Brokered by Henry Clay and Daniel Webster.
Free Soil Gains:
California admitted as free state
Slave trade banned in Washington, D.C.
Texas gave up some territory
Southern Gains:
Stronger Fugitive Slave Act (1850)
Slavery in territories decided by popular sovereignty
III. Popular Sovereignty
Definition:
People in a territory vote to decide if it will be slave or free.
Problem:
Led to fraud and violence (especially in Kansas).
Did not resolve sectional conflict.
Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854)
Repealed Missouri Compromise line.
Opened territories to slavery via popular sovereignty.
Result: “Bleeding Kansas” (violence between pro- and anti-slavery settlers).
Example:
First Kansas election: 2,905 registered voters, 6,307 votes cast → fraud.
IV. Rise of the Republican Party (1854)
Formed from:
Free Soilers
Whigs
Liberty Party members
Republican Platform:
Opposed Kansas-Nebraska Act
No expansion of slavery into territories
“Make freedom national, slavery sectional”
Feared “Slave Power conspiracy”
V. Escalation to Violence
John Brown
Radical abolitionist.
Believed violence was justified.
Led Pottawatomie Creek Massacre (1856) in Kansas.
Political compromise was breaking down → movement toward civil war.
VI. Legal Background to Dred Scott
Key Constitutional Issues:
Are enslaved people citizens with rights?
Can Congress regulate slavery in territories?
Must states enforce fugitive slave laws?
Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842)
Strengthened slaveholders’ rights.
Undermined northern “Personal Liberty Laws.”
Personal Liberty Laws (North)
Protected alleged fugitives.
Required due process.
Created conflict between states’ rights and federal enforcement.
VII. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
Supreme Court Chief Justice: Roger Taney
Main Questions:
Were enslaved people citizens with legal rights?
Could Congress ban slavery in territories?
Taney’s Ruling:
Black people were not citizens.
Enslaved people were property.
Congress could not ban slavery in territories.
Missouri Compromise declared unconstitutional.
Key Idea:
Slavery is constitutional and national, not just sectional.
Quote:
Black people had “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
VIII. Reactions
Frederick Douglass
Acknowledged despair.
Maintained faith that slavery would eventually end.
Republicans
Argued Taney misinterpreted the Constitution.
Claimed Founders did not intend slavery to expand.
IX. Constitutional Debate
South Carolina Secession (1860)
Argued Constitution protected slavery:
3/5 Compromise
Slave trade protection (20 years)
Fugitive Slave Clause
Lincoln’s First Inaugural (1861)
Constitution is vague.
Does not explicitly settle slavery in territories.
Argued for Union preservation.
X. Confederate Position
Alexander Stephens (Cornerstone Speech, 1861)
Confederacy founded on belief in racial inequality.
Explicit defense of slavery as natural and permanent.
XI. Larger Significance
Dred Scott:
Destroyed compromise politics.
Nationalized slavery.
Strengthened Republican Party.
Deepened sectional divide.
Helped push nation toward Civil War.
Key Terms to Know
Popular Sovereignty
Compromise of 1850
Fugitive Slave Act
Kansas-Nebraska Act
Bleeding Kansas
Personal Liberty Laws
Prigg v. Pennsylvania
Dred Scott v. Sanford
Roger Taney
Republican Party (1854)