r51due

本篇paper代写- The Dred Scott Decision and the Civil War讨论了德莱德·斯科特案对内战的影响。1857年的德瑞德·斯科特案彻底打破了美国南北双方精心维持的平衡和妥协。过去的联邦制一直在利用暂时的政治让步来调和矛盾。然而，德瑞德·斯科特的决定使得这些努力在奴隶制合法化的确认下变得毫无意义。随着林肯的胜利和密苏里妥协案的反驳，内战最终成为避免国家分裂的一个不可避免的解决方案。最高法院试图通过此案解决分歧。然而，这不仅没有解决危机，反而导致美国走上了分裂的道路。本篇论文代写范文由51due代写平台整理，供大家参考阅读。

In the centuries since its independence, the United States has enjoyed a relatively steady and smooth development. However, the country has witnessed two major changes throughout its history: one is the civil war (1861-1865) and the other is the great economic crisis (1929-1932). Both these drastic changes have had a profound and profound impact on the historical process in the United States, and constitute the two turning points in the historical development of the United States. The Civil War was a clash between several slave states in the south and the free states in the north. The war ended with victory of the north. At the beginning of the war, the north fought to defend national reunification. Later, the fight evolved into a revolutionary war to eliminate slavery. The Dred Scott Decision was the point when the Civil War became inevitable, because it broke the north-south political balance, intensified the ideological differences, and blocked any path of further compromise.

The Dred Scott Decision broke the balance between two competing forces in the country. A decision was made in 1820 to set a line on 36 ° 30'N as the boundary of legal and illegal slavery. This is "The Missouri Compromise" in 1820 (Mason, 2013). However, the Dred Scott Decision apparently contradicted "The Missouri Compromise" because the latter is an important legal basis for Scott's freedom. In the Dred Scott Decision, the Supreme Court ruled through Chief Justice Roger B. Taney that black slaves were not American citizens and declared The Missouri Compromise of 1820, which limited the expansion of slavery, to be unconstitutional. It further ruled that the Congress did not have the right to interfere on the slavery issues in federal territory (Vander Velde, 2015). Therefore, this case has upheld the permanent status of slavery in the U.S. system from a constitutional standpoint, further intensifying the already sharp North-South conflict. As a result, the political balance was broken when Taney ruled in favor of the legitimacy of slavery, making it more likely for the two sides to resolve their differences through war.

Scott’s case also provoked an intensified debate between the two sides on slavery. The public from both sides responded quickly and strongly to the verdict, as countless social influencers such as lawyers, politicians, newspaper editors and preachers eagerly expressed their opinions on various occasions (Vander Velde, 2015). In the south, the judgment of the Supreme Court was believed to uphold the constitutional rights in the south and justify slavery. However, the North always held that slavery is only a regional system and should not expand indefinitely into the federal territory and the other states. As Lincoln and Douglass repeatedly argued during the debate, he did not deny the Supreme Court's decision on Scott's citizenship, but he did not favor the tendency of the Supreme Court to nationalize and perpetuate slavery at all (Morel, 2007). According to Lincoln, it was unrealistic for the United States to remain in the semi-slavery forever. That is to say, war is the ultimate solution to the debate. Taney’s ruling at a perfect timing served the purpose of confronting the pubic with this truth. The Dred Scott Decision, in fact, declared that slavery can expand and spread without any restrictions. That made slavery a nationwide system, while freedom a regional one. This fueled the anger of the Northerners and contributed to the ideological and political divide in the country, leading it finally to a civil war.

Another outcome of the case is that it blocked the legal channels for the federal government to solve the problem of slavery. In United States, the Supreme Court's ruling is the final verdict, and neither the president nor the parliament can revert its decision. For the Republicans, to change the Supreme Court's ruling, the only way was to substitute the members of the Supreme Court judges and use them to veto Taney’s ruling. To do this, the Republicans must win the presidential election of 1860 and reorganize the Supreme Court through the constitutional power of the President to appoint the Supreme Court Justice. This challenged and threatened the favorable position of the south, so it announced early in the election that if Lincoln should win, it would leave the Union (Earle, 2011). In 1860, the Republican Party won the presidential election. Despite Lincoln's moderate attitude and repeated assurances that the Republican government will never intervene in the issue of slavery in the south, the southern political forces still believed that Republicans will overturn the Scott decision right after they came to power. As a result of the considerations and fears from the south, the southern states announced their withdrawal from the federal government since November 1860 (Earle, 2011). In order to preserve the unification of the federation, Lincoln decided to confront the South with force.

In conclusion, the Dred Scott Decision in 1857 completely broke the carefully maintained balance and compromise between the north and the south. The past federations have been using the temporary political concessions to compromise contradictions. However, the Dred Scott Decision made these efforts meaningless with the confirmation of slavery legitimacy. Combined with the win of Lincoln and the rebuttal of The Missouri Compromise, civil war finally became an inevitable solution to keep the country from falling apart. Supreme Court tried to solve the divide through the case. However, it not only failed to resolve the crisis, but instead led the United States to the path of separation.

References

Earle, J. (2011). The political origins of the civil war. OAH Magazine of History, 25(2), 8-13.

Mason, M. (2013). The Maine and Missouri crisis: Competing priorities and northern slavery politics in the early republic. Journal of the Early Republic, 33(4), 675-700.

Morel, L. E. (2007). The Dred Scott dissents: McLean, Curtis, Lincoln, and the public mind. Journal of Supreme Court History, 32(2), 133-151.

Vander Velde, L. (2015). The Dred Scott case in context. Journal of Supreme Court History, 40(3), 263-281.

要想成绩好，英国论文得写好，51due论文代写平台为你提供英国留学资讯，专业辅导，还为你提供专业英国essay代写，paper代写，report代写，需要找论文代写的话快来联系我们51due工作客服QQ：800020041或者Wechat：Abby0900吧。