nd that at the time of the formation of theUnited States Constitution they were not, and could not be,citizens in any of the states”(Oates 51). Because of this,Scott was still a slave and not a citizen of Missouri, andtherefore had no right to sue in the federal courts. Theirdecision meant that slaves could be taken anywhere withinthe United States, that the Missouri Compromise was inviolation of the Constitution, and that slavery could notbe prohibited by Congress in the territories of the UnitedStates. The case, and particularly the court’s decision,aroused intense bitterness among the abolitionists, widenedthe gap between the North and the South, and was among themany causes of the Civil War.In 1858, Stephen Douglas, writer of theKansas-Nebraska Act, was running for re-election to theSenate against Abraham Lincoln, then the leader of theRepublican Party in Illinois. “The campaign opened inChicago, and Lincoln and Douglas argued over, among otherthings, the question of the expansion of slavery”(Oates64). Douglas stood on his doctrine of popular sovereignty,holding that the people of the territories could elect tohave slavery. They could also elect not to have it. Heattacked Lincoln for his “house divided” speech, accusinghim of trying to divide the nation. Lincoln replied bycalling for national unity. “Recalling the Declaration ofIndependence, he said, ‘Let us discard all this quibblingabout this man and the other man -- this race and that raceand the other race, being inferior, and therefore they mustbe placed in an inferior position. Let us discard allthese things, and unite as one people throughout the land,until we shall once more stand up declaring that all menare created equal’”(Oates 66). Lincoln argued that slaverywas “a moral, a social, and a political wrong,”(Oates 66)and that it was the duty of the federal government toprohibit its extension i...
