The issue of slavery has been often touched upon in the course of history. Many political leaders and property owners tended to see slavery as an element that supported the economy. These people believed that if slavery and the slave trade were to be abolished, they would lose their colonies, commerce would collapse and as a result the agriculture and the arts would decline.
             As of being a Northern Illinois farmer part of the free soil party I would agree with my northern party and deny Dredd the right's to bring this case to court due to my raciest ideas. It should not be that Dred Scott nor any African-American have the right to hold government office, vote or sit in on juries. With all do respect to the southerners I oppose abolitionism, and believe in the individual liberty and equal rights for white people.
             The Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court in March 1857 was one of the major steps on the road to secession, and helped lead my northern party to victory. Dred Scott a slave was taken to Missouri from Virginia and sold. His new master then moved to Illinois (a free state) for a while but soon moved back to Missouri. After his master's death, Scott claimed that since he had resided in a free state, he was consequentially a free man. The case eventually made it to the Supreme Court.
             The slavery debate presented me with two very important questions: how should fugitives from slavery be treated in jurisdictions where slavery was illegal, and should a slave brought into a free state by his master be viewed as free? The first question that I agreed upon, was partially addressed by Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution and by the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850.
             Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution required runaway slaves to be returned to their masters, without specifying how it was to be done. This may seem right to the southerners but the injuring or killing a human being because of not wanting to...