How did the ruling on the Dred Scott case affect the slavery debate?
90975
Big time cause it ultimately put up a claim that Slavery was technically legal in the whole Nation even if a State had an Anti-Slavery law because it was said that if a Slave fled to a Free State then he was automatically Free.\n\nDred Scott had himself been a Slave but his owner had moved to a Free State moving Dred Scott with him.\n\nWhen owner and Dred Scott moved to a Slave State, Dred was sold to another person so then Dred Scott sued citing because he had lived on Free soil he was thus Free.\n\nThe Supreme Court ruled that Slaves were Property not Citizens and thus could not sue.\n\nThey also ruled that living on Free Soil did not Free a Slave at all.\n\nLuckily Dred Scott's new owner did free Dred Scott but unfortunately the case caused a lot of problems that practically led to the Civil War.
958995
I cannot be responsible for my ancestors' decisions. I can, however, be responsible for myself and make sure that I don't make the same mistakes. Of course, blacks have rights, but they don't have any more right to monetary compensation than the Jewish or Irish who suffered racism in a different context. Slavery is wrong. Period. Sadly, slavery is as old as history itself, but that should only mean that we should always fight against it.
198378
The importing of slaves was outlawed before the Civil War. Slaves were "home grown" by breeding slaves in the US.
729292
Interestingly enough, the 1960's era civil rights movement in America was HIGHLY influenced by Reverand Martin Luther King-whose claim was that the moral laws of God were not being carried out in the laws of America, he used the lack of equality as an example of this. \n\nThis is religion in government. Also, growth in the popular movement for Americans to free their slaves came about because most Northern abolitionists were preachers and church goers who thought slavery was a sin against man. This is why they wanted slave laws removed from their legal systems. \n\nReligion plays a very important role, and though we may claim to govern "secularly" there is no way around the moral influence of religion.
916947
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas-Nebraska_Act\n\nIt was a compromise between free state and slave state supporters that left the decicison of slavery up to each of the two new territories.\n\nIn Kansas it would probably be considered "unfair" (which is a very subjective word) because during the initial election for a slave/free state constitution many, many men from Missouri (slave state) came over into Kansas and voted for the slave state constitution.
23933
During the 1850s, the compromise over land had made the country divided. Not only was it due to slavery, it was the lack of state's rights (that differ from the federal government). President Andrew Jackson even argued with his Vice President that states do not have any reason to disband from the country and its rules after the states have signed the ultimate contract, the Declaration of Independence. The secession of South Carolina demonstrated the frustrations of state's rights and slavery disputes.\n\nIf you need to cite any failed compromises, the biggest one that could be used would be the Missouri Compromise. It was eventually considered as a failure once Dred-Scott jurisdiction contested with it.
58065
the habeas corpus thing wasn't so much about freeing slaves as it was about winning the war and preserving the union.  \n\nthe idea was that doing so was necessary to prevent those people who were calling for violent revolution and actively organizing armies against the country from continuing.  habeas corpus allows a prisoner to request a hearing before a judge in order to determine whether or not the prisoner is being held lawfully - given the number of arrests that were taking place at the time, such a thing was impossible and lincoln thought it necessary to crack down on dissent.\n\n(this was one of many acts of lincoln's that were outside of his constitutional authority, by the way, including calling up a militia, instituting martial law, authorizing without congressional approval greater spending for the army and navy, as well as certain acts of war.  however many people are largely in agreement that these actions were justified considering that the survival of the nation was at stake.)\n\nin some sense slavery was at issue in the war, and if the union lost the war, then southern slaves would have been stuck as slaves in what would have become the confederate states of america.  but really, to free the slaves of the united states all he did was issue a statement that declared them free.  of course, this was outside of his constitutional authority, too, but as they say, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.\n\nhttp://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=425\nhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl834.cfm
861451
Politics control an area. Everything such as slavery, King Cotton, and the lack of industrialization in sourth influnced politics which in turn influenced the relationships. The north and south had become very different areas. If a new tariff or law that helped one area, always hurt the other area. All these were decided in Congress, especially the slave laws.
835633
The Warren Court (1953–1969) made several rulings expanding the application of the Constitution to civil liberties, leading a considerable change in the scope of substantive due process. It held that segregation was unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education) in public (ie, tax supported) schooling, that the Constitution protects a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut), that schools cannot sponsor or impose official prayer on students (Engel v. Vitale) nor mandatory Bible readings either (Abington School District v. Schempp), dramatically increased the scope of the doctrine of incorporation (Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona), found that the Fifth Amendment (Bolling v. Sharpe) required equal protection of the laws to all, and held that the Constitution requires active compliance (Gideon v. Wainwright).\n\nThe Burger Court (1969–1986) ruled that abortion was included in the Constitutionally protected right to privacy (Roe v. Wade), made several somewhat contradictory rulings on affirmative action (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke) and campaign finance regulation (Buckley v. Valeo), and ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional as it violated the cruel and unusual prohibition in the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution (Furman v. Georgia), but later held that it was not unconstitutional after all if done in particular ways (Gregg v. Georgia).
601438
Helping you out with your homework huh?  Well I will not make it 4 or five sentences long but will give you something to think about.  \nThe impact it has on the American history is it started the rebellion against taxation and the mother country.  The second thing is that Americans decided to govern themselves and form a new government.  It also lead to no one ruler will govern America, judicial system, legislative branch and the executive branch.  It lead to a revolt and to the rights of our civil liberties.
961463
The Compromise of 1850 generated positive and negative results. Its passage quieted sectional animosities for a few years (until the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854) and held off the Civil War for about 10 years. On the other hand, Northerners were so enraged by the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act that it was impossible to strike future compromises.\n1California was admitted to the Union as a free state. \n2The New Mexico and Utah territories were to decide the question issue by relying on “popular sovereignty,” allowing the actual settlers to vote on the issue. \n3Texas lost the New Mexico territory, but received $10 million from the federal government for its loss. \n4The slave trade in the District of Columbia was abolished. \n5A new Fugitive Slave Act was passed.
651511
It legalized seperating blacks from whites in public places and left blacks at substandard living conditions.  It was not just...and was over turned in brown vs. Topeka board of education.  Plessy is one of the worst surpreme court decision in our nations history we now recognize.  It goes to show how the law can be interpreted differently at different times.  It has implications now for the marriage laws and discrimination against gays.
928410
According to the compromise, Texas would relinquish the land in dispute but, in compensation, be given 10 million dollars -- money it would use to pay off its debt to Mexico. Also, the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah would be organized without mention of slavery. (The decision would be made by the territories' inhabitants later, when they applied for statehood.) Regarding Washington, the slave trade would be abolished in the District of Columbia, although slavery would still be permitted. Finally, California would be admitted as a free state. To pacify slave-state politicians, who would have objected to the imbalance created by adding another free state, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed.\n\nOf all the bills that made up the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act was the most controversial. It required citizens to assist in the recovery of fugitive slaves. It denied a fugitive's right to a jury trial. (Cases would instead be handled by special commisioners -- commisioners who would be paid $5 if an alleged fugitive were released and $10 if he or she were sent away with the claimant.) The act called for changes in filing for a claim, making the process easier for slaveowners. Also, according to the act, there would be more federal officials responsible for enforcing the law.\n\nFor slaves attempting to build lives in the North, the new law was disaster. Many left their homes and fled to Canada. During the next ten years, an estimated 20,000 blacks moved to the neighboring country. For Harriet Jacobs, a fugitive living in New York, passage of the law was "the beginning of a reign of terror to the colored population." She stayed put, even after learning that slave catchers were hired to track her down. Anthony Burns, a fugitive living in Boston, was one of many who were captured and returned to slavery. Free blacks, too, were captured and sent to the South. With no legal right to plead their cases, they were completely defenseless.\n\nPassage of the Fugitive Slave Act made abolitionists all the more resolved to put an end to slavery. The Underground Railroad became more active, reaching its peak between 1850 and 1860. The act also brought the subject of slavery before the nation. Many who had previously been ambivalent about slavery now took a definitive stance against the institution. \n\nThe Compromise of 1850 accomplished what it set out to do -- it kept the nation united -- but the solution was only temporary. Over the following decade the country's citizens became further divided over the issue of slavery. The rift would continue to grow until the nation itself divided.
866921
The North's general attitude toward the South, from the tariff of abominations and and other laws designed to keep the south's markets isolated.   Slavery was only thrown into the mix to gain public support.  It was not the main issue.  It was the North with its industry trying to force the South to knuckle under to its demands.
46052
It was well with in their rights to leave, the North kept making the South feel more isolated with the Missouri Comprimise.  It just came to the point that the States believed that they didn't have a choice.  \n\nWould I have voted for succession then no, but what I know about how strong the National Government became after the Civil War, a person has got to wonder what would have happened if the South would have won\n\nMost historians disaggree that slavery was the cause of the war.  Especially if you factor in that the underground railroad had to go all the way up to Canada (If the North really cared about slavery it would have ended at the Mason-Dixon Line) and the Draft riots in New York.\n\nThe Civil War never became about slavery until the Emansipation Prclamation.
579552
There are two things that are often referred to as the doctrine of nullification.  The first of these occurred before the civil war, where some states (not just in the South) claimed that they had the authority to make a federal law invalid within their own state.  In other words, they just "nullified" it as it applied within the state.  The "supremacy clause" of the Constitution is pretty clear that  federal law is the supreme law of the land, but nullification advocates claimed that the only protection agains unconstitutional actions by the Federal government was to nullify the laws they disagreed with.  The Civil War put an end to that argument.\n\nThe other kind of nullification is usually referred to as "jury nullification." It occurs when a jury refuses to convict an accused person, because they disagree with the law as written.  It has a long history, going back in the United States to before there was a United States.  Colonial juries often refused to convict fellow colonists who were accused by the British of smuggling. (Smuggling was a way of avoiding the heavy taxes the British imposed.)  This infuriated people back in London.  In response, the government there tried to crack down on the colonial governments.  And the more they did that, the more we moved toward revolution.\n\nMore recently, there have been highly publicized trials where the juries came out with acquittals that "everyone" knew were wrong.  During the early days of the civil rights movement, a lot of southern juries refused to confict Klansman and other white people who killed or intimidated blacks demanding their rights.  And more recently, a great many people believe that O. J. Simpson acquittal was based on the jury's outrage at police misconduct rather than because they believed he didn't do the crime.\n\nAlthough jury nullification has probably been around ever since there were juries, no state or federal jury is "allowed" to do it.  Lawyers may not argue to the jury that they have the right to nullify the law as written, and the judge always tells them that they *have* to follow the law regardless of their individual opinions of it.  But once those twelve people close the door on the deliberation room, they have all the power and they can do pretty much whatever they think is just.
181146
The decision was based on the 14th amendment.  The case was Afroyim vs. Rusk and details can be found at:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk