Dred Scott v. Sanford,The Lecompton Constitution, Freeport Doctrine Essay

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