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 chapter 23 of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz effectively covers the synthesis of legal cases occurring under the judicial supremacy of justices like Roger B. Taney and four other Democratic justices in the Supreme Court. Dred Scott v. Sanford quickly became emblematic of the rising sectionalism in America along pro and anti slavery lines, which saw a geographical divide between the north and south.
This reading also touched upon the rise in judicial supremacy, exercised by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. Like Emily mentions in her post, I did not know how comprehensive the decision of Dred Scott v. Sanford was in synthesizing many different pieces of legislation and behind-the-scenes players including the Missouri Compromise and President Buchanan. As Wilentz develops in his coverage the Supreme Court case, there were pervasive political and sectional undertones to the debate on the issues central to the decision facing Taney and fellow justices, mainly:
- Were Dred Scott and other black Americans legal citizen of Missouri and the United States, thus allowing them to bring a case to court?
- Was the Missouri Compromise in danger of violating the Constitution by prohibiting slavery north of the 36′ 30″ line?
- Did previously enslaved peoples gain freedom by living in a free state for a longer period of time?
Emma touches on the growing sectionalism at the time based upon differing opinions on superior economic practices. Political figures like Stephen Douglas and President Buchanan further polarized the growing divide between the north and south, which as many posts have alluded to, set up for the tensions calling for war.