"A Nation-people of similar characteristics and a community with its own territory and government." (Webster's, 613). Less than one-hundred years after the United States had fought so passionately to become a whole, people found themselves breaking further apart from their neighbors and feeling a constant sense of turmoil within their society. Images of the Civil War conflict involve men ruthlessly fighting against their own brothers, family against family, and constant tension between a nation divided against itself. It was obvious that parts of our "nation" did not share many similar characteristics and were not always in agreement in government. The cause of the Civil War conflict can be interpreted in different ways, yet there are a few key words that perhaps best help historians understand the reasoning behind this enormous tragedy. The pre-Civil War period was a time where the American people yearned to shape their own character. The Northern and Southern sections each began to notice a fatal change in one another; the South began to look at slavery as a necessity on which freedom would be based, while the North was committed to extinguishing slavery as a test of freedom. Both sections found the other in a state of betrayal of the Founding Fathers and believed that what they were trying to accomplish was the "correct and proper" thing for their country. One event that perhaps is a specific cause of the Civil War is the Dred Scott decision, one that questioned the citizenship of a slave and gave abolitionists opportunity to politically argue with the Supreme Court. It is often seen as the "last straw" in the coming of the war. Instead of solving the issue, it proved that slavery's fate could only be determined by war. With this divided opinion on slavery, a strong sense of sectionalism was felt within the country. The newly formed country did not appear to be homogenous; and strong provincial geographical differences began to emerge. The diverse views and different people were struggling to exist. The divided country began to feel like opponents and these differences were ultimately unsolvable without the horrors of war.

The slavery question was for years probed by Congress and resulted in little resolution. With the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court attempted to solve the controversy; the decision is perhaps one of the best examples of the crucial slavery question. Dred Scott was a Missouri slave who was owned by William Sanford. He was taken into the Wisconsin territory, a free state, and when he returned, sued for his freedom. Scott first won his case, however lost when the case moved onto the Supreme Court. The question was whether or not his residence in a free territory had made him free. The abolitionists saw an opportunity to support such an important anti-slavery cause; they gave Scott legal help and money and stated that Scott was now a free man since he had residence in free territory. The Dred Scott v. Sanford case debated the issue of whether or not Scott was a citizen of the United States and thus eligible to sue in a federal court. The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Roger Taney, delivered their opinion on March 6, 1857 in Washington, D.C. "Taney, his face seamed by the wrinkles of his eighty years, then read the majority opinion…the frail Chief of Justice declared that a black slave, or a free black who's ancestors were slaves, could not be a U.S. citizen, and that Congress had no power to keep slavery out of the territories of the United States." Taney argued that living in a free territory does not make one free. Overall, this decision ended the hope for justice and equal rights. The Dred Scott decision would also be much more determining in other various issues of government. It remains to this day, the most famous of all American judicial decisions.

With this ruling in the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court also decided to rule on the Missouri Compromise. "The Missouri crisis, it has been said, introduced the anti-slavery issue into American politics." The compromise from Henry Clay included the admission of free Maine, the prohibition of slavery in the rest of the Louisiana Territory north of Missouri's southern boundary. It was a territorial issue, and also one that divided Republicans from Democrats. The constitutional question was whether or not Congress had the power to prohibit slavery in the territories. During the Dred-Scott decision, the Court ruled on this compromise. Two northern justices argued for Scott's freedom and the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. However, Southerners on the court had been eager to declare the compromise unconstitutional. They felt it was time to resolve an issue that had caused so many problems. When Taney declared that Scott was not a citizen and that Congress had no power to bar slavery from a territory, it directly overturned a sectional compromise that had been honored for years.

In addition, this decision also invalidated the ideas in the Wilmot Proviso, which stated, "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any territory gained from Mexico." It transformed American politics, and it constituted the territorial shears that would one day sever the Union. The introduction of it in 1846 came during the height of controversy over slavery. The fact remains that the Dred Scott decision nullified previous government decisions based on one court case. There was always controversy and suspicion of the circumstances around the decision. Since five of the nine justices were southerners and pro-slavery, there was always the question of that matter as an effect on the decision.

The Dred Scott decision altered the formal argument over slavery, one that had been splitting the nation for years. Taney's pro-slavery opinion lent credence to the fear of many northerners that an aggressive slave power was determined to extend perhaps to the free states. Taney argued that the Founding Fathers had never intended for blacks to be citizens, however, in reality, blacks had been citizens in some of the original states. The reaction in the North was an angry reaction. It alarmed abolitionists, settlers to the West, and those who feared the South's influence. It was thought that the U.S. was then just becoming a homogenous slaveholding community.

The Dred Scott decision also had a critical influence on the election of 1860. First, it contributed significantly to the split of the Democratic Party, however more importantly, had a significant influence on the Republican upsurge. Lincoln received 98% of the northern electoral vote which was a difference of over a half-million Republican voters in free states. The Dred Scott decision caused no major "political revolutions" or major change in society, however, contained the sentiment of conflict and sad realization that the slavery issue would perhaps remain unsettled without a major war.

War obviously involves a strong sense of sectionalism. During this time, the nation began to appear divided against itself, and we as a nation, felt that strong sense. The different parts were not producing a homogenous "whole"; there were many political, social and economic differences. For example, the growth of the railroads in the North alienated the North from the South in transportation. This was just one of the many differences between the two. Geographical questioning of borders and expansion also brought about the sectionalism within the country. Sectionalism is another key word that helps historians summarize one of the major issues in cause of the Civil War.

In order to understand what caused such a vast tragedy such as the Civil War, one must study all aspects of society and events of the preceding years. Many times there is one event that sparks rebellion or draws the line. In the case of the Civil War, the Northern and Southern opinions on the issue of slavery were seen as having too many differences to avoid a major conflict. In Lincoln's famous words, "A house divided against itself cannot permanently stand." The Dred Scott decision is an example of how the nation could not exist in this constant conflict and remain content. In questioning the citizenship of a slave, the decision favored property rights over human rights, proving the sentiments of many harsh Northern officials. So many people's lives were at stake, and it was determined that the fate of slavery could only rest in the hands of war. With these divided opinions, diverse views, and different societies, the United States was struggling to exist, in some ways calling our names. One must understand many issues were personal and close to the heart. It was a blind battle that horrified some to believe our country had the potential to disunite. It is a frightening issue that is quite unthinkable in society today.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fehrenbacher, Don E., The Dred Scott Case. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1978.

Holliday, Joseph, "The Critical Election of 1860." The Cincinnati Civil War

Round Table. (1996) :1-2.

McPherson, James M., The Struggle for Equality. Princeton, New Jersey:

Princeton University Press, 1964.

Norton, Katzman, Escott, Chudacoff, Paterson, Tuttle, A People and a Nation.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1994.