US_Ch1_webquest_Dred-Scott-Case

=**Impacts of the Dred Scott Case Web Quest**=


 * Task:** Discover how Supreme Court decisions can have unintended consequences and how the decision by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roger Taney in the Dred Scott case wrecked an economy and hastened a war. The Dred Scott case of 1857 represents the law of unintended consequences.


 * Process:** Read the passage below and answer the questions asked within the passage.

The beginning of the case dates back to 1846. Dred Scott was a slave in 1846 who filed a suit in Missouri for his freedom. He was born into slavery in 1799 to a Virginia slaveholder Peter Blow who sold Scott in 1833 to an army doctor - John Emerson. Scott went with Emerson to a post in Illinois then Minnesota in the Wisconsin Territory and into other states before arriving in St. Louis, Missouri. Missouri allowed slaves to buy freedom. After Emerson's death, Scott tried to buy his freedom from Emerson's widow, but she refused. As a result, he sued for his freedom. Long story short...he was a slave taken into free territory then back to the slave state Missouri. Take note that the slave state of Missouri allowed slaves the ability to use the courts.

Scott built his case on having been taken to free territories, which is why __he felt he deserved freedom__. In his initial case he lost. However, when he appealed (sought a review of his case) to the circuit court of appeals, the court ruled that he was free. This took place in 1850. Mrs. Emerson appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court in 1852 by which time John Sanford (Eliza Emerson's brother) was given title to the slaves and inherited the case. In the Missouri Supreme Court, the circuit court decision was overturned and Scott was again a slave. Therefore, Scott appealed to the Missouri federal court, which agreed with the Missouri Supreme Court. The final place to appeal was the U.S. Supreme Court.
 * (1)** **Why did Scott feel he deserved freedom (think about the location of the territories his master took him to)?**

//Dred Scott v. Sanford// was the name of the case when it reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The __odds were stacked against Scott__ with 7 of the 9 justices having been appointed by Southern presidents of which 5 had slaves at some point in their lives including Chief Justice Roger Taney. Taney was a believer in States' Rights and slavery (though he did free his slaves in 1820). The Taney Court had ruled on a similar case before Dred Scott. In //Strader v. Graham// (1850) slaves from Kentucky who went to Ohio were bound by Kentucky law rather than Ohio (which meant they stayed as slaves). However, in the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court went beyond upholding the decision of the lower courts. Instead, the court issued a manifesto (declaration of principles and/or intentions) on property rights and slavery.
 * (2)** **Why would the odds be stacked against Scott just by the fact that 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Southern presidents (in your opinion)?**

The Taney Court ruled 7-2 against Scott. Chief Justice Taney began the Court opinion by saying blacks were never regarded as citizens of a state or possessed any political rights. The Court maintained that the Founders never intended to give blacks citizenship rights (this is false seeing as how 10 of the 13 colonies allowed blacks the right to vote...if they owned property...like whites). The Court went on to rule that Congress couldn't prohibit slavery. According to the Court, only a state after achieving statehood could do so when writing it's state constitution. The Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional (since Congress prohibited slavery in parts of the country) and that popular sovereignty was void wherever it was instituted. __Abolitionists and free-soilers were upset__ since the Court ruling meant slavery was here to stay.
 * (3) Why would abolitionists and free-soilers be upset with the decision?**
 * (4)** **In terms of the Court ruling that Congress couldn't prohibit slavery, how would this swing the pendulum toward the South (in your opinion)?**

The case results triggered various reactions around the nation. In the Lincoln-Douglas Debates for the Illinois Senate seat in 1858, Abraham Lincoln called for Stephen Douglas to reconcile his support for the case and for popular sovereignty (remember that Douglas favored popular sovereignty while the Dred Scott decision ruled that popular sovereignty was null and void). Stephen Douglas was already on shaky ground in terms of Southern support from the Kansas-Nebraska Act. It obviously upset the North since it overturned the Missouri Compromise and it upset the South since anyone who could read a map could see more states could come out of the northern part of the Louisiana Territory. In the __Freeport Doctrine__, Douglas's response to Lincoln was that he supported the Dred Scott decision but that the people could keep slavery out of their state by refusing to pass legislation that would protect slavery and by electing officials who would not enforce it. This statement would divide his party since Southerners fully supported the Dred Scott decision and Northerners didn't, which __doomed his hopes of winning the presidency__.
 * (5) Why would the Freeport Doctrine doom Douglas's hopes for winning the presidency in 1860...something he wanted as a goal?**

The Dred Scott decision meant that slaves could be taken anywhere in the North, which is what Lincoln meant when he said "__//a house divided against itself cannot stand and that it had to be all one or all the other//__." Lincoln also warned that acceptance of the Dred Scott decision could lead to later decisions prohibiting states from excluding slavery.
 * (6) In Lincoln's "House Divided" speech, what did he mean by it (the house) had to be all one or all the other (what do you think he meant)?**

In terms of the case, the South felt that if property rights in the territories were restricted as well as movement of slaves in the territories was restricted, then maybe there would be complete restrictions on slavery as a whole in the states at a later time. In debating the Wilmot Proviso, Senator John C. Calhoun said that it was against the federal compact to encourage runaways of slaves or abolish slavery. Congress had a gag rule in place, which meant that slavery would not be brought up for discussion in the 1830s and early 1840s. The gag rule over slavery is like criticizing Muslim extremists in today's Congress - can't hurt their feelings since not all Muslims are terrorists! Calhoun would move to punish opinions against slavery as being wrong. A __key principle in a republic form of government__ is that republics can only last if the losing side of a debate or issue is willing to accept the decision of the majority.
 * (7) Do you agree or disagree with the key principle in a republic form of government? Why?**

Today, Republicans and Democrats disagree on key issues but accept outcomes that result in laws and if any disagree they try to sway public opinion to change the law. An example is with the health care bill, which was unpopular but yet passed by the Democrat controlled Congress and President Obama, also a Democrat in the summer of 2010. The Republican Party didn't quit and secede from the Union. Instead, the Republican Party tried to build their anti-health care message and it was part of the reason the Republicans took control of the House and increased seats in the Senate in the November 2010 elections. In terms of the South in the 1850s, they wanted to win the battle, which would be to force the nation to accept the Southern definition of property and slavery. However, when the pendulum swung more and more toward the North, the __South seceded__ instead of allowing the republic to play out the process. If this was allowed to happen, what about the future when a group is unhappy with the opinions of the majority and would therefore be a __danger to the republic__.
 * (8) How is secession (Southern states leaving the Union and forming their own nation) a danger to the American republic based on the principle?**

In terms of the Dred Scott case, the Taney Court didn't recognize the injustice of slavery. Abraham Lincoln did. In //Fragments on Slavery// in 1854 Lincoln reasoned that slavery is wrong because of the following: "You say A is white and B is black. It is //color//, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be a slave to the first man you meet with fairer skin than your own. You do not mean //color// exactly? --- You mean the whites are //intellectually// the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be the slave to the first man you meet with an intellect superior to your own."
 * (9) Was Lincoln's //Fragments on Slavery// and good message of anti-slavery (in your opinion)? Why or why not?**

Even before the Dred Scott case, the nation was divided between free soil and pro-slave. Southern abolition societies vanished by 1837. Most Southern states had laws that punished public support of abolition. Vigilante committees in the South found subversives and even whipped them. Northern travelers were viewed with suspicion.
 * (10) How did the South help ensure the continuation of slavery through the late 1830s and into the 1840s and 1850s?**

The situation in Kansas continued the divide and even divided the Democrat Party as 70% of free state seats in Congress went away from Northern Democrats - they didn't go to the Whigs - they'd go to the Republican Party. In addition, pro-slave settlers in Kansas established a capital at Lecompton while anti-slave setters set up a capital in Topeka. Kansas had two legislatures, two state constitutions, and two territorial governors - one pro-slave and one anti-slave. There were also skirmishes in Kansas. The "Sack of Lawrence" was when a pro-slave group went to Lawrence and burned a printing office and ransacked a hotel. A few days later, John Brown led a group to Pottawatomie creek and executed five pro-slavery "ruffians." Congress even tried to trick the Kansas settlers to go with the Lecompton Constitution. The trick was to vote on one "with slavery" or one "without slavery" ("without" meaning without NEW slaves coming in). Overwhelmingly, the citizens in Kansas rejected both. Nevertheless, the __situation in Kansas was hostile and unstable__ due to the fighting about slavery.
 * (11) How was the situation in Kansas hostile and unstable?**

The Dred Scott decision certainly upset many in the United States with the results. However, one of its unintended consequences was the Panic of 1857. The Panic of 1857 was an economic depression in the United States. It began when depositors (people who put money in the bank or stock market) panicked. Anything (back then) that spread bad news about bank assets could send markets into a spin and cause business failures. So, how did it happen? In the 1850s, railroads were the hot stocks to buy. There were three types of railroads people would invest into. One were older eastern railroads. Two were ones that ran along shorter, established routes that served local distribution of goods. Three were ones built westward to connect western markets with the east coast --- these are the ones that would be the problem. The western routes were newer. In 1853-54 investment in western railroads soared. Income from western railroads depended on a steady flow of western settlers, which in turn relied on high levels of confidence in the prospects of territories. In 1857, confidence was high. Newspapers of the day noted the "railroad fever" of the day. There was also "fever" in Kansas with people selling homes and giving up well paid positions to go to Kansas as well as borrowing money at 10% interest to buy farms in Kansas. In other words, settlers continued to flock into Kansas going into 1857 (remember that income for those who invested in western railroads needed the western railroads to be successful --- western railroads depended on a steady flow of setters to the west to be successful --- settlers were willing to go west as long as conditions were good and worthwhile...which they were in 1857 and is the reason __western railroads and investors saw a lot of success__ in 1857).
 * (12) Why were western railroads and their investors seeing a lot of success in 1857?**

Then, there was a sharp change in expectations. Optimism for the future in terms of western railroads in the west (especially Kansas) and the price of western land went down as did railroad securities (stock) in the summer of 1857 --- stocks dropped ONLY in western railroads. By October 1857, a banking crisis struck major financial cities. With the announcement of Dred Scott March 6 and 7, 1857, the possibilities for free soil western lands rapidly deteriorated as did the hopes and dreams of thousands of potential settlers, which saw expectations decline. The situation in Kansas continued to deteriorate from June 1857 when votes were to take place on the Kansas constitution (free or slave state) in which there was voter fraud --- one county had six houses but 1,600 votes were cast for the pro-slave constitution and in McGee County there were 20 registered voters yet 1,200 votes were cast for the pro-slave constitution. The Dred Scott decision had an impact on Kansas, which impacted the economy. Investors will either put money into projects or pull it out based on expectations about business climate (think about yourself...would you be willing to invest money in a place where there's hostilities? Probably not...(who would put a business or have a successful business where it's hostile?).
 * (13) Why would expectations in western railroads decline in Kansas especially after the Dred Scott decision?**

So, how did the shock to western railroad business and stock turn into a __national crisis__ and the Panic of 1857? First, as investments in western railroads went down. Second, outside of New York City, banks used correspondents to send a flood of their stockholdings to New York banks to convert to gold and silver, which further depleted bank resources. A stockbroker is one who will purchase stock for you (you go to a stockbroker and they'll put your money into the market where you want it and they get a small percentage of your gains). The third element leading into a nationwide panic is that brokers got concerned about the value of their stock so they forced more bond sales. Soon, New York City banks started to face bankruptcy. There would be a ripple effect to other banks - __national crisis__. So, here's how it went: Dred Scott decision - bad situation in Kansas got a lot worse - less movement west and less use of western railroads - stocks went down - people pulled wealth out of banks and banks sold bonds - more bonds - then more bonds - banks failing. __Eventually, industry would be impacted__. More than 2/3 of New York's shipbuilders were laid off. Pennsylvania industry - iron, furnaces, and coal fields - also declined. It took until January 1859 for banks and industries to get back to pre-crash levels. The political results were movement to the Republican Party in the North due to discontent and an increase of King Cotton economics in the South - the South believed they could sustain their own economic system due to cotton.
 * (14) How did the Panic of 1857 become a national crisis?**

Going into 1860, the single most important asset in Southern economics were slaves. The value of slaves continued to go up. What changed in the 1850s? The railroad and steamship networks and their use of free labor (workers) came into contact with slavery as direct competition for the first time. The Dred Scott decision meant this competition could cross borders even in Northern states. Until the 1840s, travel from North to South or vice versa was costly, long, and not often done, so Northerners didn't experience slavery's threat to free soil. The Dred Scott decision triggered an social panic (in addition to the economic panic described above) that would lead to the politics of secession in the South. The Taney Court could have simply agreed with the Missouri courts, which would have still kept Scott as a slave and it wouldn't have angered near as many people and may not have split the Democrats. The Dred Scott decision divided the Democrat Party and angered many Americans that Republican victory in 1860 was almost a sure thing, which __increased tensions between the North and South__. The election of Lincoln in 1860 would swing the pendulum on its final swing, which was north against slavery as a property right.
 * (15) How did the Taney Court increase the tension between the North and South?**

The Dred Scott case wouldn't be the last time that court decisions would result in damaging unintended consequences. For example, in the early 1900s, the Supreme Court was seeking to rule on anti-monopoly laws to protect small businesses from big businesses trying to form a monopoly. However, in the process the Supreme Court harmed smaller firms. Studies of stock performances showed that actions against big business coincided with business down turns of smaller firms too. This is similar to court actions against Microsoft in the late 1990s of Microsoft being a monopoly or close to one. Microsoft's competitors didn't do any better. The Founding Fathers didn't want the Supreme Court to overstep authority. They wanted the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of laws rather than "make" laws. An example of the Supreme Court "making" laws (making in quotes because the Congress is the body that makes laws) was in the 1960s when the Supreme Court banned prayer in public schools. At one time, schools were allowed to have prayer, which wasn't mandatory and didn't force anyone to take part who didn't want to take part. However, the Supreme Court decided to ban school prayer. Judicial activism is this "making" of laws. The Taney Court merely could've ruled like past decisions --- that Scott was subjected to Missouri state law, thus keeping him enslaved. Instead, the Taney Court ruled further and overturned Congressional laws, which is an __example of judicial activism__...the Court making policy instead of Congress.
 * (16) How does the Taney Court show an example of judicial activism?**


 * Conclusion:** Answer the following thinking questions.
 * **(17) How did the Dred Scott decision wreck an economy and hasten a war?**


 * **(18) Government often makes laws that seem anti-business whether it's through higher taxes or regulations that limit what businesses are allowed to do. Based on what you've learned about stocks often depending on future expectations, what does history suggest should be best government policy towards business? Why?**

> >
 * **(19) In terms of causes of the Civil War, where do you rank the Dred Scott decision? Why?**
 * **(20) Rank the Dred Scott case as a cause of the war compared to the Wilmot Proviso, Compromise of 1850, and Kansas-Nebraska Act - one being the biggest cause and four being the least cause.**

Back to U.S. History 1850 to the present Chapter 1 page