Dred Scott's Argumentative Essay

Since the first migration of settlers began, America has always boasted itself` as the land of the free, the home of the brave, and a haven for all; however, when one peers deeper into the eloquently written half promises of freedom laid out in the Declaration of Independence, the reality is far from what is portrayed. From manifest destiny to slavery, discrimination has been engraved in the American way of life from the beginning. Over the centuries, there have been many instances where America has provided onlookers a glimpse of its true beliefs on issues such as race, but none more assertive than that of the court case Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott was a slave who once belonged the family of Peter Blow, but was later sold to the army
Removal of the Missouri Compromise upset a decision that took place years before the case even appeared before the Supreme Court, when the United States acquired a mass of land west of the Mississippi River from France in 1803 during the Jeffersonian administration. Even though the majority of Americans believed that acquiring land was crucial to securing America’s position on the world stage, the topic of slavery in these states was still a heavily debated subject. During this time the United States had 22 states, 11 of which were free and 11 of which were slave. These states preserved a delicate balance of power in the Senate. In 1817, when Missouri requested admission into the union, this balance was threatened. Congress, in 1819, contemplated legislation that would allow Missouri to construct its own state constitution, which led James Tallmadge, a representative of New York, to add a stipulation that would ban slavery in the new state to the legislation. The amendment passed in the house, which was controlled by northern representatives, but failed to pass in the senate which was equally divided between northern and southern states. The senate adjourned without having resolved the issue. The issue of slavery in the newly acquire land led to heated debates
Sanford court decision further galvanized abolitionists around the notion of trying to end the peculiar institution of slavery. Before the case, many northerners were acquiescent with the idea of slavery as long as it remained contained in the south; however, after the court decided in the case against the sovereignty of free soil, the north saw this as a blatant attempt to expand slavery into the western territories. They believed that with no congress to check the spread of slavery, once slavery spread into the western territories it could easily find its way into the free states. This concept managed to insight fear into the usually complacent northern abolitionists and sprung them into action. While the south hailed the decision as a triumph for southern rights, many abolitionists believed that this decision was “like a declaration of war on all of the ideals and freedoms awarded them by their states and territories, which stood opposed to the institution of slavery” (Oswald). The north quickly voiced their revulsion of the Supreme Courts actions in articles denouncing the court for their decision. One such article in New York Daily Tribune, even went on to accuse the Supreme Court as being corrupt and working in favor of the interests of slaveholding southerners. The articles author then went on to state that it should be "regarded, throughout the Free States and wherever the pulse of Liberty beats, only as the votes of five