Free State Battery in Kansas, 1856
Here are the Chapter 13 questions written by your classmate, Theda Clay. Please answer at least one of these in a response of roughly two paragraphs in length:
1) What were the justifications presented for having slavery or not having slavery in the western territories?
2) Why did a rebellion in Texas occur between the Mexican government and the American settlers in 1835? After Texas obtained its independence, why was there opposition to it joining the United States? Do you think that President Polk’s push for war was legitimate?
3) Why was the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed? Why was their so much controversy over the creation of a territorial government following the passage of the act? Why was the territory eventually called “Bleeding Kansas”?
4) What was the decision in the Dred Scott case, and what effect did this judgment have on African Americans in the United States?
AMERICA TO 1877 
In the ruling of the Dred Scott case, it stated that if a slave’s master dies, he or she is not a freed slave. With this decision, I believe that the slaves began losing hope. That they truly were a piece of property instead of a human being. I think the given verdict was unfair and the only reason they came to that decision is so that slavery can be an ongoing thing instead of being slowly abolished.
3
The Kansas-Nebraska act was passed as an effort to open up a middle ground in which to build a transcontinental railroad that neither favored the North, nor the South. From the moment it was passed, the act was incredibly controversial. Northerners were outraged that the Missouri Compromise had been repealed, allowing territories north of the designated line have the possibility of becoming slave-states.
The real conflict began when Kansas was trying to establish its state constitution, with the primary issue being slavery. Kansas was essentially hijacked by pro-slavery Missourians, who overwhelmed the election in their favor, electing to the legislature a majority pro-slavery body. This led to retaliatory actions by anti-slavery enthusiasts, which ultimately wound up in a mini-war that would last a couple of years.
On March 6, 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks, including slaves as well as free blacks, were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country’s territories. This decision had both a optimistic and pessimistic effect on African Americans. Optimistic in a sense as Douglass found a bright side to the decision and announced, “my hopes were never brighter than now.” For Douglass, the decision would bring slavery to the attention of the nation and was a step toward slavery’s ultimate destruction. So because this decision was so controversial and notorious it alarmed many people in different ways which stirred up many conversations among those who agreed and disagreed. Pessimistic in the sense that it was as if someone pulled the chair underneath the hope for freedom among slaves. Some viewed is as progress coming to a halt. Whatever the view or emotion was among individuals one thing that could be agreed upon by all is that this decision launched a new and stronger wave of the abolition movement.
The justification of having slavery in the western territories was justified by the simple fact that the white owners were giving the slaves a life of luxury that they wouldn’t get anywhere else. The white owners would look at the slaves and compare their society with the African society and they wold see that their lives are better therefore they are saving the slaves from a wretched life. The white owners also justified slavery by saying the slaves sing therefore they are happy.
In the Fredrick Douglas memoir he states that even though the slaves are singing that doesn’t mean because they are happy but it was simply to pass time and not feel the bad feelings they are feeling. While the white owners look at the singing as a happy notion the slaves if anything were opposite of it. The white owners would go and say they are giving them fatherly and motherly lives but how is that possible when some are beaten to death, they only eat once a day, have one pair of clothes that are changed once a year. This idea is absurd slavery had horrible impact on the slaves and they (slaves) never liked slavery.
The Dread Scott case decision was made into which it further enabled the fugitive slave act yet diminished the boundaries drawn by certain compromises to allow states in the West to be a free state. Further than that the Dread Scott case viewed the slave as a property not a human which deteriorate the view of slaves as people with rights and human capabilities. The Dread Scott case was the second case to validate judicial review, which viewed a law as constitutional or unconstitutional. Therefore compromises that were made as an effort by the Free Soil Party to create new states free were considered unconstitutional, because under the constitution slaves were considered personal party and are subject to the personal conditions that the slave owner desires, whether travelling to a free state or not.
This case further asserted the Southern view of Slavery, and established the tension between abolitionist and slave owners at a greater level. Compromises that were pre-established in hopes to preserve the union in a compromising effort between two different ideologies, was now considered unconstitutional.Thus the cases reflected a favoring approach to a pro-slavery ideology.
The outcome of the Dread Scott case on the state level was that he was free. However, when brought to the supreme court, it was ultimately found that he wasn’t human, and therefore couldn’t bring anything to court. He was enslaved from that moment forward. It’s a bit difficult to know how that judgment effected black people individually, as records of how slaves felt about anything weren’t kept. What is known, however, is how it affected America as a nation. It led to increased tensions between the north, who had more heart burn with slavery, and the south, who solved the cognitive dissonance they had about slavery by labeling it a goodly thing.
This case is also known as being the tipping point for the Civil War, which famously pitted brother against brother.
The Dred Scott case was detrimental blow to abolitionist ideals but also a strong spark. The fact that Scott had been deemed free by the state government and then deemed as strictly property by the supreme court really showed were the cards truly laid. The case polarized the issue of slavery further than it had previously been and was definitely a spark that helped start the Civil War.
4) The Dred Scott case did not result in freedom for the Scott family. This case was weird because they were in a free state, but were still slaves. I think slaves did not believe that the supreme court or any justice system will be justified to them in any circumstances.
The slaves would start believing that any justice system would not give them the justice they needed.*
2) There was a rebellion against Texas and Mexico because Texas settlers starting occupying Mexico’s territory and Texas had become its own independent country. There were probably many oppositions against Texas joining the United States because of Mexico’s economic interests. The northerners believed that Texas is a big slave state, so that would ruin the abolition of slavery in the long term. Polk wanted Mexico to recognize Texas’s annexation, but it was illegitmate. The war became legitimate when Mexico troops killed American settlers in Rio Grande.
The Kansas – Nebraska Act was passed for the purpose of expansion. Plans for the transcontinental railroad could not be finalized if the government had not set the conditions of the lands.
The controversy, in my opinion, over the passing of the Act began with the removal of the indigenous people. Douglas perceived the natives to be a minute task and in discussion, oral and written, the indigenous often seem to be overlooked. Their plight however was as important to the movement of continued expansion, as was the debate over the slave institution.
The popularly discussed controversies are Stephen Douglas’ violation of the 1820 Missouri Compromise and popular sovereignty. Douglas having reneged on the terms of the Compromise, which declared a ban on the furtherance of slavery stirred more than a bit of trouble with anti – slavery supporters. An additional offense was leaving the fate of the slave institution to those who settled on the territory. Pro slavery supporters were of course overjoyed by the Act and moved into Kansas with the hopes of strengthening their positions. Anti – slavery supporters settled in Kansas with the goal of winning an election that would deem the territories free.
The territory was eventually called “Bleeding Kansas,” because of the barbaric displays of violence that took place during the length of the controversies. Revolts said to have been led by an anti – slavery leader John Brown are described as merciless.
Dred Scott Decision basically said that slaves did not have the rights as a citizen of the United States, and the laws under the Constitution do not protect them or serve them. The effect it would have on African Americans, I would assume would be like getting kicked when your down and the feeling of being utterly helpless by all means, there was nothing, no man or law that could defend them.
Justifications of slavery to expand westward, was that slaveholders were actually helping the slaves providing for them as much as they were providing for them in a paternal manner, as if the slaves depended on them, and with out the slave holders they would have no order or sense of civilization and that the slaves actually needed the slaveholders. they used every moral justification they could such as religion, and that Africans and whites were not made for the same reasons.
4) What was the decision in the Dred Scott case, and what effect did this judgment have on African Americans in the United States?
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney said that all black people, including free slaves, were not and
could never become citizens of the United States. Also, they believed that Dred Scott
had no right to wear a suit to court either-it was illegal.
In addition, the court said that African-Americans were chattel and according to the Constitution, they were property of their owners.
Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery either.
No African person can have citizenship within the United States, including free slaves.
Also, the court declared that African Americans did not have the right to sue someone.
1) What were the justifications presented for having slavery or not having slavery in the western territories?
Slave owners wanted more land in the West. They were growing more crops and cotton, and with the invention
of the cotton gin, they wanted to bring slaves to the West to work on the land.
The Southerners economy was growing so they wanted to spread it into the Western states.