Question

Dr. John Emerson was a surgeon serving in the U.S. Army. In 1833 he purchased Dred Scott, a slave in Missouri. The same year he moved to Illinois taking Scott with him. Emerson was sent to a fort in the Wisconsin Territory. Scott, his slave, went with him. While living in the Wisconsin territory (now Minnesota) Scott met and married Harriet Robinson. She was owned by a justice of the peace. After marrying Scott, Emerson became her owner as well. Emerson returned to Missouri taking his slaves with him. In 1843 Emerson died in Missouri. Scott and his family were left to Emerson's wife, Eliza Sanford.

In 1846 Scott sued for his freedom in court. Helped by Abolitionist lawyers, he claimed that he was free because he had lived in free states for a long time. The defense claimed that Dr. Emerson was forced to move to Wisconsin territory because he served with the United States Army. He should be able to keep his property. The presiding judge, Roger B. Taney, decided that Scott was not free and he did not have a right to sue. Furthermore, he stated that Congress could not make laws prohibiting slavery in United States territories.
The Dred Scott decision of March 6, 1857, brought to a head the tension surrounding the issue of slavery in the United States. In the case, the Supreme Court ruled that Scott was still a slave, and therefore, and no right to file suit in a United States court as he was not a citizen and did not have the rights of such. The Enquirer, a Democratic newspaper, greeted this decision with great applause. The author declared that the verdict in the case was a strong blow at the evils of the Missouri Compromise, and a victory for the people of the South. This was a major defeat for abolitionists, These abolitionists could now be seen as enemies of the Union (United States). It is also interesting to note that the decision was described as a victory over prejudice; assumedly the perceived prejudice to which southerners felt abolitionists subjected them. The Dred Scott decision was a landmark case in that it drew a clear line of how the government stood on the issue of slavery, and further inflamed arguments surrounding an already divisive topic within American politics.While southerners were ecstatic at the outcome, the massive abolitionist campaign to aid Scott led many southerners to claim that abolitionists were anti-southern and thus, enemies of a greater Union. Southern slave owners, as well as supporters of slavery, saw the Dred Scott case as a crucial win. It gave them a sense of legal standing to be able to say that the supreme law of the land had not only upheld the idea of slavery, but also dealt a crushing blow to the wildly unpopular Missouri Compromise that made slavery illegal in the north. That acthad sought to limit the spread of slavery into the new territories of the west and maintain the racial balance of power between North and South. People who supported slavery could now argue slavery should be allowed to exist anywhere in the country.

Use the Organizer to paraphrase two details that describe the NEGATIVE impact the Dred Scott Decision had on the Abolitionist Movement in the United States.

Answer 1

The Dred Scott Decision negatively affected the Abolitionist Movement, denying African Americans citizenship and civil rights, and undermining efforts to limit the spread of slavery by declaring the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.

Step-by-step explanation:

The Dred Scott Decision had several negative impacts on the Abolitionist Movement in the United States. First, the Supreme Court's ruling that African Americans could never be citizens meant that they had no legal standing to sue, thus denying their basic civil rights and weakening the legal arguments that abolitionists could use to fight against slavery. Secondly, by declaring the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, the decision opened the door for the extension of slavery into previously free territories, confronting abolitionists with the stark reality that their efforts to limit the spread of slavery were not supported by the highest court.