Explain how the decision of the court created further tensions between the states and eventually led to the civil war (5 paragraph essay). Will give brainliest!

When it was written in 1787, the

constitution, in effect, permitted slavery. Many of

the founders owned slaves. Others opposed

slavery.

They hotly contested the issue of how to

deal with slavery during the Constitutional

Convention, and the problem of slavery

continued to plague the new nation. By the

1850’s some states had forbidden slavery while

others still protected it.

In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, was taken

by his master to Rock Island, Illinois, a town in a

free state. His master later took him to the

Wisconsin Territory, where the Missouri

Compromise of 1820, a federal law, had

forbidden slavery. His master then brought Scott

back to Missouri, a slave state. Scott brought

suit against his master claiming himself a free

man because he had resided in areas that had

banned slavery.

The Constitutional Issue

The case involved three issues: (1)

Scott had lived in the free state of Illinois. Did he

become free while living there? Should Missouri

have to recognize that freedom? (2) Scott had

traveled to the Wisconsin territory, which

Congress had declared a free territory in the

Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and prohibited

slavery in all of the American territories north and

west of the Ohio River. This region, called the

Northwest Territory, consisted of land now

occupied by the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,

Michigan, Wisconsin and the eastern portion of

Minnesota.. Did he become free while living

there, and should Missouri have to recognize that

freedom? (3) Did the Supreme Court have the

power or jurisdiction to hear this case?

Scott’s Claim

Scott claimed that by bringing him to

Illinois, his master had freed him. Illinois did not

allow slavery. Therefore, any slave brought there

became free. Once Scott became free in Illinois

no Missouri Law could turn him into a slave

again. Scott’s lawyers further argued that

Missouri should recognize the laws of another

state in the Union.

Scott also claimed that he was free

under the Missouri Compromise. Passed by

Congress and recognized as the law of the land

since 1820, the Missouri Compromise prohibited

slavery in all the federal territories north of the

36°30’ latitude, the southern boundary of

Missouri. When Scott’s master brought him to

Fort Snelling, (in the Wisconsin Territory) in what

would become the State of Minnesota, Scott had

also become free. Even if Missouri chose not to

recognize the laws of Illinois, the constitution

required all states to recognize the laws of

Congress, as the supremacy clause of the

Constitution (Article VI, Paragraph 2) clearly

stated.

Finally, Scott’s lawyers argued that the

Supreme Court had the power to hear this case.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution

established the jurisdiction (authority to hear

cases) of the federal courts. This jurisdiction

extended to cases “between citizens of different

states.” Scott’s master was now dead, leaving

him technically under the control of his dead

master’s brother-in-law, John F.A. Sandford, who

lived in New York (notice that the case is called

Scott V. Sandford because during the

proceedings a clerk misspelled the name of the

defendant). Scott claimed that if he was free

then he had to be a citizen of Missouri. As such,

he could sue a citizen of New York in federal

court.

The Decision

By a 7 to 2 vote, the Supreme Court

ruled against Scott on all three issues. In an

extraordinary decision, all nine judges wrote

opinions that totaled 248 pages. Chief Justice

Roger B. Taney’s fifty-five page“ Opinion of the

Court” expressed the collective view of the

majority.

the rest of the

answer; john locke;