Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Sectionalism , States Rights &Dred Scott Case
Transcript of Sectionalism , States Rights &Dred Scott Case
The North side was the industrial side. Business and industry was a major role there. Even though they weren't known for agriculture, the North side produced the most grain. The North Side also opposed slavery.
State Rights- theory that states should have all powers not given to the Federal Government and that states can control their own situations.
This debate over which powers rightly belonged to the states and which to the Federal Government became heated in the 1820s and 1830s especially under the issue of slavery being allowed in the new territories or not. As the debate continued, the North and South became increasingly different, and their desires also differed from each other.
Sectionalism is loyalty to different parties with local interests which is what divided the North and South.
Sectionalism , States Rights & Dred Scott Case
By: Alexandra Fiallos
Dred Scott Case
Dred Scott Case
State Rights is a theory that powers not given to the Federal Government belong to the states.
The country is divided in sections.
The North opposes slavery
The South supports slavery.
The West did not participate in sectionalism.
Dred Scott was a slave that sued for freedom, but never got it.
The 5th amendment was applied.
The South side was the agricultural side. There, the economy was based primarily on large family farms known as plantations . This economy relied on cheap labor of slaves to produce things like tobacco and cotton. The South Side was in favor of slavery.
What was state rights?
How was the North and South different from each other?
Since the west was fairly new, it did not take part in the practice of sectionalism.
Tried to sue for his and his wife's freedom.
Case went all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Dred Scott argued that, even though he had been born in a slave state, he had lived in free states for a long time before returning to his home state due to a new master.
US Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott was a slave using the fifth ammendment.
The fifth ammendment says you can't prohiit property rights without due process of law.
This case was the spark of the Civil War.
What amendment was applied during Dred Scott's Case?
Why did Dred Scott think he deserved freedom?
Up to what point did the case go to.