His owner took him to what then was the free state of Illinois for a couple of years. Because it was so far up North, slavery had been declared illegal in Illinois through the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (Davidson, pg 296). So in Illinois, Dred was considered as free man. However when Dred and his slave owner came back to Missouri, he was forced to be a slaved man again as Missouri was a slave state. Dred Scott found this unfair and voiced his belief over how he should be freed as a slave because he had resided in a free state. This matter was quickly taken to the supreme court, which was dominated by pro slavery supporters and it eventually ruled this as a seven to two vote against Dred Scott and his wife; Harriet Scott ( Hopkins, Course Lecture Materials). They also stated that slaves were not citizens of the United States of America, but a mere piece of property. In addition to that the supreme court ruled the Missouri Compromise of 1820 as unconstitutional, saying that the congress had no right to force any state to be pro slavery or anti slavery and should rather leave it up to the citizens of that certain state. This added to the large array of problems that the anti slavery supporters had, who argued that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 kept the nation together and shouldn 't have been repealed for the benefit of the nation as a whole. The reason why I believe that this event is among the most critical events leading up to the Civil War is because it made many parts of the nation believe that belonging to a certain region from the United States mattered, dividing the nation as a whole. For Example the people living on the North Western and South Western parts of the United States separated themselves from the North and South calling themselves the West . This would lead to more seceding of states and more importantly;
His owner took him to what then was the free state of Illinois for a couple of years. Because it was so far up North, slavery had been declared illegal in Illinois through the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (Davidson, pg 296). So in Illinois, Dred was considered as free man. However when Dred and his slave owner came back to Missouri, he was forced to be a slaved man again as Missouri was a slave state. Dred Scott found this unfair and voiced his belief over how he should be freed as a slave because he had resided in a free state. This matter was quickly taken to the supreme court, which was dominated by pro slavery supporters and it eventually ruled this as a seven to two vote against Dred Scott and his wife; Harriet Scott ( Hopkins, Course Lecture Materials). They also stated that slaves were not citizens of the United States of America, but a mere piece of property. In addition to that the supreme court ruled the Missouri Compromise of 1820 as unconstitutional, saying that the congress had no right to force any state to be pro slavery or anti slavery and should rather leave it up to the citizens of that certain state. This added to the large array of problems that the anti slavery supporters had, who argued that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 kept the nation together and shouldn 't have been repealed for the benefit of the nation as a whole. The reason why I believe that this event is among the most critical events leading up to the Civil War is because it made many parts of the nation believe that belonging to a certain region from the United States mattered, dividing the nation as a whole. For Example the people living on the North Western and South Western parts of the United States separated themselves from the North and South calling themselves the West . This would lead to more seceding of states and more importantly;