It maintained its identity in relation to the opposition by a moderate and pragmatic advocacy of strict construction of the Constitution. Because it had competition, it could maintain discipline. It responded to its constituent elements because it depended on them for support. But eventually, its very success was its undoing.
From the s, the question of whether slavery would be permitted in new territories had threatened the Union. Over the decades, many compromises had been made to avoid disunion. But what did the Constitution say on this subject?
This question was raised in before the Supreme Court in case of Dred Scott vs. Dred Scott was a slave of an army surgeon, John Emerson.
Scott had been taken from Missouri to posts in Illinois and what is now Minnesota for several years in the s, before returning to Missouri. The Missouri Compromise of had declared the area including Minnesota free. InScott sued for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived in a free state and a free territory for a prolonged period of time.
Finally, after eleven years, his case reached the Supreme Court. At stake were answers to critical questions, including slavery in the territories and citizenship of African-Americans.
The verdict was a bombshell. The Court further ruled that as a black man Scott was excluded from United States citizenship and could not, therefore, bring suit.
According to the opinion of the Court, African-Americans had not been part of the "sovereign people" who made the Constitution. The Court also ruled that Congress never had the right to prohibit slavery in any territory.
Any ban on slavery was a violation of the Fifth Amendmentwhich prohibited denying property rights without due process of law. The Missouri Compromise was therefore unconstitutional.
Taney, a former slave owner, as were four other southern justices on the Court. The two dissenting justices of the nine-member Court were the only Republicans. The north refused to accept a decision by a Court they felt was dominated by "Southern fire-eaters.
Two of the three branches of government, the Congress and the President, had failed to resolve the issue. Now the Supreme Court rendered a decision that was only accepted in the southern half of the country. Was the American experiment collapsing? The only remaining national political institution with both northern and southern strength was the Democratic Party, and it was now splitting at the seams.
The fate of the Union looked hopeless. Sandford Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the now infamous opinion of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, and the text is available on this webpage.The Missouri Compromise remained law until , when it was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act that allowed the populace of these two new states to locally choose their status of slave or anti-slave.
Portrait of Dred Scott by Louis Schultze, painted from a photograph. Dred Scott's battle for his freedom began at the Old Courthouse in St.
Louis, Missouri. The Chief Justice of the United States was Roger B. Taney, a former slave owner, as were four other southern justices on the Court. The two. Kansas-Nebraska Act of repealed the Missouri Compromise of It applied the principle of popular sovereignty to the territories.
It permitted the expansion of slavery beyond the Southern.
What impact did the Kansas-Nebraska Act have on the old Missouri Compromise line that had been the longtime border for slavery? -It allowed the expansion of slavery north of the 36°30' line.
-It had no effect; Kansas was below the line. The Kansas–Nebraska Act of (10 The Act itself virtually nullified the Missouri Compromise of The turmoil over the act split both the Democratic and Whig parties and gave rise to the Republican Party, which split the United States into two major political camps.
Kansas-Nebraska Act What is the difference between the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of ? The Missouri Compromise was an agreement passed in between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States Congress.