Back To CourseHistory 103: US History I
13 chapters | 115 lessons | 5 flashcard sets
As a member, you'll also get unlimited access to over 70,000 lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you succeed.Free 5-day trial
Tensions had been rising steadily for over a decade between the North and the South since the tenuous political peace that had existed after the Nullification Crisis (a conflict over state versus federal rights). This peace was now being tested in the Missouri and Kansas territories. Many in the North believed that the South had every intention of extending the peculiar institution of slavery as far as it could, and events to come at the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 further cemented this belief.
The Dred Scott decision, as it has come to be known, would set back the cause of free blacks, abolitionists and moral crusaders in the United States in ways not imagined before the decision was handed down. But to understand how and why, let us first look at how the Supreme Court came to hear the case.
In 1834, a white man by the name of Dr. John Emerson of St. Louis, MO, joined the army to serve as a surgeon. He was assigned to a duty station in Illinois and was later transferred to the Wisconsin Territory. He would then return to Missouri, and throughout this trek, he was accompanied by his slave, Dred Scott. After the death of Dr. Emerson in 1846, Scott and his wife Harriet, whom Scott had married while in Wisconsin with Dr. Emerson, befriended a lawyer and decided to sue in the courts of Missouri for their freedom. Their argument? Simple. They claimed residence in Illinois, where slavery was illegal, and also in Wisconsin, where the Missouri Compromise had been outlawed. If the court supported their cause, Scott and his wife would be free.
If only things were that simple. There were bigger issues at work behind the scenes with larger consequences for Dred and Harriet Scott. Among them was the question of whether Congress or local governments had the power to outlaw slavery in the territories. If they didn't, no slave could ever petition for their freedom in these territories; it would be a moot point. Things moved slowly in the courts - so slow in fact that after several years of litigation, Scott was sold to a new owner named John Sanford, causing a refilling of the case against Sanford. The case finally reached the Supreme Court of the United States on March 6, 1857, over ten years after the original lawsuit had been filed. Justice was anything but swift. Nonetheless, Scott was going to get his decision.
It wasn't positive. The court ruled that free or slave, blacks were not citizens. Therefore, Scott had no right to sue in federal court. In fact, he had no rights at all under the U.S. Constitution. He was not considered a citizen! The court continued by declaring that under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, the federal government could not deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of the law. But wait a minute. I bet you're asking, 'Isn't that what they were doing to Mr. Scott?' Indeed, but the court did not see him as the aggrieved party. Instead, the aggrieved party was the late Dr. Emerson, who had been deprived of his property - his slaves - by the Missouri Compromise!
What is more, if Congress had no right to repeal slavery in the territories that were not yet states, how could the local governments in these territories do so? They couldn't, according to the Supreme Court. In fact, the decision made it so that nothing could be done to the institution of slavery until such time as these territories in our ever-expanding West became states. Until such time as they became states, slavery was as inviolate as the freedom of speech or religion or any civil liberty granted by the Constitution. In one fell swoop, it seemed the court was saying that slavery was not some small, regionalized, peculiar institution but instead a nationwide right that could only be abolished when states, not territories, passed laws to do so. It was a lot to swallow, not only for the defeated Mr. Scott, but for abolitionists across the entire country.
Northern critics of slavery could not escape the irony of the court's citing of the Bill of Rights to keep blacks in chains, and the institution of slavery seemed destined to extend from the South all the way to the new territories - even to the Pacific Ocean. Just as the Nullification Crisis had convinced many in the South that the political deck was stacked against them, the Dred Scott decision convinced many in the North that slavery was not going to be defeated politically; something else would be required. What was that something else? That was yet to be known, but things did not look good for the United States.
The lead up to the decision on the Dred Scott case was being watched closely by all politicians on all sides, including one future president, James Buchanan. His campaign had been one that featured a conciliatory tone and rhetoric, urging the nation and his supporters to wait. Wait for the Supreme Court decision on Scott, and respect it, no matter the outcome. Looking back through the prism of history, one can now see that this was a foolish statement to make, one of many missteps that haunted his presidency. What is more, it is one reason why President Buchanan did not - and does not - rate highly among most historians for being a great president. It also did not help that Buchanan came to the presidency at a time when the nation was rapidly changing, growing and dividing. He was the wrong man at the wrong time. Critics argue that Buchanan was too rigid in his application of constitutional principles, failing to see the realities around him, including the North's refusal to accept the growing institution of slavery and the destruction of the Whig Party, which gave rise to an ardent abolitionist party known as the Republicans.
But, who was this man, James Buchanan? Born in 1791, James Buchanan was a child of privilege. His wealthy family was from Pennsylvania and provided him with the best education that money could buy. Like many before him, he served in Congress, as well as secretary of state, a position that seemed to groom future presidents. His last service, under President Pierce, saw him serve as minister to Great Britain, and this kept him out of the bitter domestic disputes back in the United States. It also made him an ideal choice for the Democratic nomination for president in 1856. What his party couldn't see was his distance from these events made him particularly insensitive and perhaps a bit out of touch with the political realities within the country.
To his credit, Buchanan used all of his political skill to keep the peace. He was forced to walk a tight rope on the slavery issue. He believed that it was a matter for individual states to decide for themselves, and this stance earned him Southern support. His only real opponent in the election of 1856 - Senator John C. Fremont, the first Republican presidential candidate - favored the prevention of slavery in the western territories, and this set him at odds with Buchanan. The nation, though divided, put its trust in Buchanan's political expertise and experience, hoping that he could prevent war over the slavery issue. Buchanan received his first political setback two days after his inauguration, when the Supreme Court announced the Dred Scott decision. Republicans immediately denounced the decision, but as a presidential candidate, Buchanan had echoed his support for the court. As president, he had little choice but to back it.
The country was divided like never before, on clear lines. Republicans were now exclusively a party of the North, anti-slavery and abolitionist to the core. The South was dominated by the Democrats, a pro-slavery and pro-states' rights party. Things would only get worse for the nation and for Buchanan, who found it increasingly hard to govern. Buchanan's presidency was now completely focused on keeping his base of support and keeping the union intact, with little else accomplished in his four years. To win re-election and to mollify the South, he saw only one course of action: to bring Kansas into the Union as quickly as possible as a slave state. His fellow Democrat, Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, broke from his party and demanded a popular vote decide the issue in Kansas. This internal division was evident to every political power broker and served to weaken the Democratic Party from the inside.
To add to his troubles, Buchanan now had to deal with abolitionists attempting to start riots and slave revolts. In 1859, a fiery abolitionist by the name of John Brown seized the Southern town of Harpers Ferry, VA, in a futile attempt to spark an uprising of slaves. Although Brown was captured and hanged, he did manage to kill five innocent people, and his actions drove another wedge between the North and the South.
By the time of the election of 1860, the internal rift in the Democratic Party was too wide to repair. Buchanan had proven inept at handling the divisions tearing the country apart, and the split from the popular Douglas only served to further drain his political capital. The result was a Democratic Party divided into a Northern and Southern half, ensuring that the Republican nominee, a relative unknown lawyer from Illinois named Abraham Lincoln, would win the presidency.
Angered by the inevitable election of an anti-slavery Republican, Southern politicians began making their move. But Buchanan, still president until March of 1861, held out hope that Southern states could be convinced not to secede through his personal presidential diplomacy. He quickly shifted tactics when he realized the South had no interest in the olive branch, but were instead taking up the sword. In December of 1860, South Carolina seceded from the United States.
After South Carolina's actions, Buchanan took a more stern approach and ordered the resupply of Ft. Sumter in Charleston, S.C. As the ship approached the fort, it was fired upon by South Carolina's militia on January 9, 1861. Buchanan retreated from active diplomacy and let the clock run out on his presidency.
On April 12, 1861, just a few weeks after he left office, the American Civil War began. Buchanan had failed to prevent the nation from falling apart and left a political mess for his successor to clean up. Only now, the chaos would become more than political. Blood would be spilled.
Following this lesson, you'll be able to:
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
Already a member? Log InBack
Did you know… We have over 160 college courses that prepare you to earn credit by exam that is accepted by over 1,500 colleges and universities. You can test out of the first two years of college and save thousands off your degree. Anyone can earn credit-by-exam regardless of age or education level.
To learn more, visit our Earning Credit Page
Not sure what college you want to attend yet? Study.com has thousands of articles about every imaginable degree, area of study and career path that can help you find the school that's right for you.
Back To CourseHistory 103: US History I
13 chapters | 115 lessons | 5 flashcard sets