The Dred Scott Decision: The Institution of Slavery in Politics
Slavery in the United States is most historically notorious for its inherent injustice toward blacks. In the decades prior to the Civil War, the slavery controversy carried increasing political weight. Proslavery and antislavery factions began to consider how slavery fit into the United States’ political and historical background.1 Accelerating expansionism in the 1840s revived conflicts earlier settled by the 1820 Missouri Compromise.2
The Liberty Party formed to advocate the total elimination of slavery. Although abolitionists were effective as social agitators, they were less skilled in political organization. The Liberty Party reached its peak of influence in the presidential election of 1844 and still only received 62,300 of the votes, about 2.3%. The total elimination of slavery was too radical for the majority to accept. Less radical movements took hold in the Free-Soil and Republican parties that opposed the further expansion of slavery but accepted its place in the Union.3
The 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act opened another battleground to the controversy. By leaving the slavery question up to popular sovereignty, Congress initiated a race between abolitionist and proslavery forces to control Kansas. Abolitionists encouraged free-soil advocates from New England and New York state to move to Kansas. Ministers like Henry Ward Beecher supported this emigration and encouraged their parishioners to help fund free-soil advocates. Meanwhile, proslavery forces urged slaveowners to relocate with their slaves. Southerners from Missouri and farther southeast made the move. The resulting conflict and bloodshed between the two groups earned the area the nickname Bleeding Kansas.4
The conflict moved physically to Congress on May 22, 1856 when South Carolina Representative Preston Brooks brutally assaulted Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner for his anti-slavery criticism. Mass protests in Boston and New York City coincided with widespread southern applause.5 The nation
The Liberty Party formed to advocate the total elimination of slavery. Although abolitionists were effective as social agitators, they were less skilled in political organization. The Liberty Party reached its peak of influence in the presidential election of 1844 and still only received 62,300 of the votes, about 2.3%. The total elimination of slavery was too radical for the majority to accept. Less radical movements took hold in the Free-Soil and Republican parties that opposed the further expansion of slavery but accepted its place in the Union.3
The 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act opened another battleground to the controversy. By leaving the slavery question up to popular sovereignty, Congress initiated a race between abolitionist and proslavery forces to control Kansas. Abolitionists encouraged free-soil advocates from New England and New York state to move to Kansas. Ministers like Henry Ward Beecher supported this emigration and encouraged their parishioners to help fund free-soil advocates. Meanwhile, proslavery forces urged slaveowners to relocate with their slaves. Southerners from Missouri and farther southeast made the move. The resulting conflict and bloodshed between the two groups earned the area the nickname Bleeding Kansas.4
The conflict moved physically to Congress on May 22, 1856 when South Carolina Representative Preston Brooks brutally assaulted Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner for his anti-slavery criticism. Mass protests in Boston and New York City coincided with widespread southern applause.5 The nation