One of the differences between Jackson's and Marshall's opinions on the Indian Removal Act
Jackson emphasized the removal of the Indians to avoid any further clashes, while Marshall argued that it was important that the Indians not be relocated because they were on their territory. Marshall and Jackson held contrasting views about how the federal and state governments could deal with Native American tribes. Marshall claimed in Worcester v. Georgia that states should not enforce lands on tribal lands and he saw Native American tribes as nations equal to the United States (Henretta 23-64). Jackson was not a fan of this and this forced him to pressure the leaders of Cherokee to sign a removal agreement. However, both Jackson and Marshall were guided by the rule of law in all their decisions that they made. Both believed that the decisions that they stood for were for the betterment of the Americans.
Southern locality representation
By the 1860s, there are various groups that made the south increasingly complex society. These groups included yeoman farmers, landless whites, free blacks, slave-owners and slaves. Other groups of persons that occupied the southern region included the traditional southern gentry, cotton entrepreneurs, smallholding planters, the poor freemen and the planters’ elite. During this time span, the affluent groups usually viewed themselves as more superior compared to the lower ones in the society. The lower ones, on the other hand, always strived to be like the affluent in the society. The elite slave-owners formed a sort of aristocracy and stood at the head of the area's political society. Most of those that succeeded in politics were always the elite and were regularly elected into public offices. In the political arena, the elite were always voted into the public offices by those that were categorised to as middle class or the farmers and free blacks. The southern region was known for its complex social structure and class system.
Slavery in the western territory
The the main constitutional arguments advanced during the debate over slavery in western territories focused on human rights and economic benefits. The human rights issue was pushed for due to the torture that the slaves, mainly from the black community, faced on the hands of the Whiteman. Taney wrote in his opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford that Scott, as a slave, had no rights as a citizen of the United States and due to his not being a U.S. citizen, he was denied the rights. The argument aimed at ensuring that the slaves were set free and that they enjoyed constitutional rights that the Native Americans enjoyed. Another constitutional argument was focused on economic benefits. The leaders wanted to ensure that the western territory enjoyed massive expansion in terms of its economy (Henretta 10-55). The strengthening of the economy was based on the agricultural produce and the rise in the industrialization. On the matter on whether Scott was a free man because he had lived in Illinois and Wisconsin Territories, Taney relied on the distinction that because Scott was technically a slave when he filed the lawsuit and this means that under the law, he was still a slave, irrespective of where he lived. He further ruled that the compromise by Missouri was itself unconstitutional and his argument was that due to the deprivation by the Act of Congress, the property that belonged to the slaves.
Work Cited
Henretta, James A et al. America: A Concise History. 6th ed. Bedford/St. Martin’s: N.p., 2014. Print.
