2J - Hardening positions, 1857–1860
Learn how a Supreme Court decision, public debate, local resistance and an abolitionist raid made competing solutions to slavery less compatible, before the Democrats finally split in 1860.
Dred Scott and federal power
The Dred Scott decision of March 1857 attempted to settle the territorial question through constitutional law, but intensified the political dispute. Scott had been enslaved in Missouri. His owner had taken him to Illinois, a free state, and to federal territory in which the Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery. Scott argued that residence on free soil had made him free.
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's majority opinion held that people of African descent whose ancestors had been brought to America and enslaved were not citizens within the meaning of the federal Constitution and could not sue in federal court. The Court also held that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories: it treated enslaved people as constitutionally protected property and regarded the Missouri Compromise restriction as unconstitutional. Scott's residence therefore did not secure the freedom he claimed.
These were distinct claims. The citizenship ruling excluded Scott from the federal judicial route. The territorial ruling attacked Congress's ability to contain slavery. That second claim mattered politically even though the Kansas-Nebraska Act had already repealed the Missouri restriction. It appeared to prevent Congress from restoring such a prohibition and threatened the foundation of the Republicans' programme.
The decision also created trouble for popular sovereignty. If a slaveholder had a constitutional right to take enslaved people into a territory, could its inhabitants exclude slavery? Southern defenders regarded the decision as vindication of property rights. Republicans saw federal judicial authority protecting the expansion of slavery, reinforcing their suspicion of the Slave Power. The dissents, including Justice Benjamin Curtis's argument that free Black people had been citizens in some states at the founding, showed that this constitutional interpretation was contested within the Court itself.
Taney's opinion stated:
“the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution.”
Authentic short excerpt: Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 6 March 1857. Original case document and transcription, National Archives.
The excerpt demonstrates the property-rights premise underlying the majority's treatment of slavery. For source analysis, the judgment has exceptional value for identifying that legal reasoning and the exclusion it imposed. Its official status does not establish that its account of citizenship was historically correct or accepted by everyone. Comparing the reasoning with the dissent and contemporary political responses is more useful than assuming a Supreme Court document must be neutral.
Lincoln, Douglas and Freeport
The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 exposed the gap between local choice and constitutional protection. Lincoln challenged Douglas for the Illinois Senate seat. Senators were then elected by state legislatures, so their campaigns sought support for legislative candidates as well as public attention. Seven joint debates between August and October carried their arguments beyond Illinois through newspaper reports.
Lincoln maintained that slavery was wrong and should not expand. He did not advocate immediate federal abolition in the existing slave states, and his positions on racial equality were more restricted than a modern account of equal citizenship. Douglas defended popular sovereignty: local white voters should decide their domestic institutions, and national politics should not impose one answer. Both sought support among white voters, but the moral significance each attached to slavery was different.
Lincoln had set out the stakes in his House Divided speech, delivered to the Illinois Republican convention on 16 June 1858. He argued that the government could not remain permanently half slave and half free: stopping slavery’s expansion would place it on a path towards eventual extinction, while further proslavery victories might make it lawful more widely. He explicitly said that he did not expect the Union to dissolve. This was a warning about slavery’s future, not a promise to abolish it immediately in every state. Its stark alternatives challenged Douglas’s claim that local choice could quiet the dispute and made southern fears of containment easier to understand. Speech transcript, Lincoln Home National Historic Site.
At Freeport on 27 August, Lincoln asked whether a territory could lawfully exclude slavery despite Dred Scott. Douglas answered that slavery required supportive local legislation. If inhabitants withheld that support, slavery could not effectively exist there. This Freeport Doctrine preserved practical local choice without openly rejecting the Court's ruling.
That answer helped Douglas defend himself in Illinois, where the Democrats retained enough legislative strength to return him to the Senate. It also alienated southern Democrats who wanted federal enforcement of slaveholders' rights, not a route by which hostile local voters could frustrate them. Douglas won the seat; Lincoln gained national recognition. The immediate result and the long-term political consequence were therefore different.
Published debate texts need care. They preserve extensive contemporary arguments, but competing newspapers and later editions could reflect different reporting and party sympathies. Their greatest value lies in identifying the arguments actually made and how speakers sought to persuade audiences. They cannot, by themselves, establish that all listeners agreed or that the speaker's allegations about opponents were true.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account