Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
In the final chapters of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz discusses the final developments in the national powder keg, which inevitably exploded, thereby prompting the Civil War. While most other posts have thoroughly discussed the finer points leading up to this conflict, I found Wilentz’s analysis of the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision to be particularly notable.
Rather than solely focusing on the political tension between the North and South, Wilentz rightfully acknowledges the Supreme Court’s role in spurring conflict. Dred Scott v. Sandford focused on Scott’s attempt to buy himself (and his family) from slavery after living in Wisconsin, which was a free territory. Despite Scott’s previous condition of servitude, such a change presumably gave him standing in the fight for his freedom. Ultimately, the Court ruled that slaves were not citizens and thus they had no claim to citizenship. As such, Scott had no standing in the case. This meant that because he was not a citizen, he could not bring his plea to a courtroom. This distinct use of judicial review clearly reaffirms the Supreme Court’s role regarding the separation of political powers in the federal government. The Court’s ruling undid the Missouri Compromise, which had previously offset tensions concerning slavery. Furthermore, the Court also stripped power from Congress, as it dictated that Congress had no right to regulate slavery.
As we can see, the Court’s ruling meant that the issue of slavery could no longer be resolved politically. Unintentionally or not, their ruling had serious consequences.
Although many have already written eloquently about it, particularly Alia and Andrew, John Brown also played a role in contributing to the advent of the Civil War through non-political means. His use of direct force, although brief and futile, brought him to the forefront of tension over slavery. Ultimately, as others have stated, he encouraged military action to resolve slavery. However, more than that, he became a martyr in the North – giving a name and face to the cause.