Dred Scott v. Sanford,The Lecompton Constitution, Freeport Doctrine and Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 - Essay Example

Dred Scott v. Sanford Dred Scott was a 61 year old slave who sued for his freedom in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford in 1856. While traveling with his owner, an army doctor who frequently traveled, he resided in the free states of Illinois and Wisconsin. Upon returning to Missouri, a slave state, he sued for his freedom and the court ruled 7-2 that he did not have citizen status and therefore could not sue. The trial was a legal battle between antislavery forces that argued that once a slave had traveled to a free territory the slave was free. According to Huston (2003), the opposition argued, " being a slave, had no right to petition the court like a citizen- slaves, obviously, were not citizens and had no citizenship rights " (p.217). The trial was seen as an effort by the South to extend their control of slavery into the North. The original case was decided by a technicality but later ordered retried. After a series of trials, the US Supreme Court found that Dred Scott was not entitled to citizenship. This case, more than any other, precipitated the movement toward civil war. It was a test to see how far the South could extend the boundaries of slavery. This would be the beginning of the ever-widening gap between the North and the South. Some abolitionists saw the movement toward war as a positive move towards resolving the issue. Frederick Douglass, though disappointed by the decision, also expressed his hopes that the South would finally be confronted. With the war in sight, it was hoped that victory would eventually bring justice. The Lecompton Constitution The Lecompton Constitution was the Kansas State Constitution presented to Congress to initiate their admission to the Union. One of the issues that surrounded the constitution was whether Kansas would be a free state or a slave state. Proslavery advocates controlled the Lecompton Constitutional Convention of Sept. 1857, while opponents of slavery were given little choice as to the content of the document. The fight over the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution would result in tensions that would hasten the nation's move towards the Civil War Though most of the Kansas voters were in favor of an antislavery constitution, the majority at the convention were proslavery and would not allow the issue to be put to a fair vote. The antislavery constitution merely outlawed the importation of new slaves, but did not outlaw the existing slavery. When the document was put to a vote, the anti-slavery forces boycotted the proceedings. However, the anti-slavery legislature voted two weeks later and the constitution was voted down. The controversy was presented to Congress who could grant statehood in accordance with the Lecompton Constitution or vote it down. President James Buchanan supported the constitution as written. The House and the Congress compromised in an effort to minimize the crises. However, the damage had already been done. Stampp (1992) contends that, "As a result, 1857 was probably the year when the North and South reached the political point of no return" (p. viii). The split between Republicans and Democrats had reached beyond the their ability to compromise. Freeport Doctrine The Freeport Doctrine was put forward by Stephen Douglas during the Douglas-Lincoln debates of 1858 in Freeport Illinois. The Doctrine specified that local law authorities could enforce federal law as they saw fit. This was an attempt to bridge the gap between slavery and antislavery forces. It was contrary to the earlier Dred Scot decision, which stated slavery could not legally be excluded from the territories. The doctrine, though not new, gained attention during the public debate. Lincoln had fared poorly in the previous debates and took the offensive in Freeport. He asked if a territory "in any lawful way . . . exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution" (Carwardine, 2006, p.80). Douglas responded, "Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion the people of a Territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State constitution" (qtd. in Krakow). This was the concept of Douglas's popular sovereignty that contended territories could outlaw slavery. It also left the possibility of slavery being legal, which Lincoln steadfastly opposed. Though Lincoln lost the election, he was propelled to national prominence by his oration and political stand against slavery. This would open the door to his presidential election in 1860. Douglas's ambiguous stand had galvanized the Union in favor of antislavery. This debate would put the Union on the path to war that Lincoln had called, "The universal liberty of mankind" (Boritt, 1992, p.190). There could be no slavery anywhere and Douglas's attempt to reconcile the Dred Scot decision with popular sovereignty had polarized the issue and brought slavery into national focus. Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 The Fugitive Slave Law passed in 1850 mandated that any federal marshal or law enforcement official who did not arrest a runaway slave could sustain a substantial penalty. Slave states contended that by not returning their rightful property, Northern states were violating their state's rights. Northern states argued that the intrusion into the North violated their state's rights. The law was part of the Compromise of 1850 passed by congress to appease the South. The law gave slaveowners "the right to organize a posse at any point in the United States to aid in recapturing runaway slaves. Courts and police everywhere in the United States were obligated to assist them" (Carrasco & Solberg 1996). Private citizens were also bound to assist in the return of runaway slaves. Anyone caught aiding or abetting a runaway slave could be fined $1000 and sentenced to six months in jail (May, 1861, p.4). For Northern abolitionists, this put them in a position that Elkins (1972) describes as, "Placed in a supervisory position over his fellow inmates..." (113). The law meant to appease the South had worked to exacerbate the North. The Compromise of 1850 and the attendant Fugitive Slave Law were the initial indications that the nation was truly split. The law separated families and put northern sympathizers at risk. It was viewed as vigilante justice and helped to energize the Underground Railroad. Its impact and backlash would lay the groundwork for future legislation and court decisions. References Boritt, G. (1992). Lincoln, the war president: The Gettysburg lectures. New York: 0xford University Press. Carrasco, H., & Solberg, O. (1996). The fugitive slave bill of 1850. Retrieved March 18, 2007, from http://education.ucdavis.edu/NEW/STC/lesson/socstud/railroad/contents.htm Carwardine, R. (2006). Lincoln : A life of purpose and power. Westminster, MD: Alfred A. Knopf . Elkins, S. (1972). Slavery: A problem in American institutional and intellectual life (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Huston, J. (2003). Calculating the value of the Union : Slavery, property rights, and the economic origins of the Civil War. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Krakow, I. (2006). Archive for the 'Freeport Doctrine'. Retrieved March 18, 2007, from http://www.irakrakow.com/constitution/category/freeport-doctrine/ May, S. (1861). The fugitive slave law and its victims (). New York: American Anti-slavery Society. Retrieved March 18, 2007, from Google Book. Stampp, K. (1992). America in 1857 : A Nation on the brink. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press, Incorporated. Read More