© 2006 Go-Essays® All Rights Reserved

Factors Leading to the Civil War

The legal case study of Dred Scott v. Sanford serves to elucidate the fundamental causes of the Civil War through an analysis of societal transformations. The friction created through Supreme Court rulings, most notably within the Missouri Compromise of 1850 and federal law, as well as the divide that occurred between slave states and free states provided the initial thrust towards hostile conflict. America’s ideological thoughts on slavery began to change, too. Indeed, as the abolitionist cause began to grow in strength and size, and as Abraham Lincoln spoke of freedom for all men and women, war began. Thus, the crux of the conflict that led to the Civil War was slavery, and Dred Scott v. Sanford finally brought the immorality of the institution to America’s consciousness. 

The first cause of the Civil war can be viewed through the territorial issues that slavery eventually brought to Missouri and California. In the former case, Missouri was entering the Union when there was a balance of both free and slave states (eleven, respectively). However, because Missouri was a slave state, there entrance would disrupt the balance in Congress (1). A compromise was made by creating Maine and labeling it as a free state, which thus kept the balance of free and slave nations, and the Missouri Compromise was born. With the Mexican-American War over, the United States once again had to deal with the issue of territory and slavery in California, but as the author of the text notes, “the Compromise of 1850 failed to resolve the question of how a nation committed in theory to principles of liberty and equality could tolerate chattel slavery on its soil” (1). The moral question hovered over some of the most thoughtful leaders who would begin the abolitionist movement.

The abolitionist movement was growing with power in the North, changing some of the nation’s opinion on slavery which either led to the call the institutions complete elimination or opposition to the abolitionist movement. Naturally, the tensions here beseech conflict. And after the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, which stated black men and women whether free or slaves “could never be citizens of the United States”, and that, furthermore, “Congress had no authority to abolish slavery in territories controlled by the federal government” (1), America’s    consciousness had seemingly been awakened to the immorality of slavery.

Even so, the movement against slavery had not been inclusive. Some of the people had opposed the movement towards freedom, as naturally the slaves provided their owners financial capital and cheap labor. Slaves were an economic tool that would further the white man’s capital. In others eyes, some began to see the disparate and unequal treatment slaves received from a nation that preached ‘equality and justice for all’, which has truly never been the case, and fought to eradicate the institution of slavery for a greater purpose. The heated debate on slavery had serious implications because America was built upon forcible work and labor, and those who were reaping the benefits were numerous and wealthy. They would not just give their slaves over because of some ‘ideological conscious growing movement’; no, they would fight to secure their way of life and their revenues.

In review of these problems, it is clear that the Civil War could not have been avoided unless slavery was to remain in society. Those who fought against slavery were as equally as passionate as those who wanted it to remain, and it was up to the national leaders to demonstrate and implement those fundamental with which this country was built upon.