Slavery and four years of war : $b a political history of slavery in the United States, together with a narrative of the campaigns and battles of the Civil War in which the author took part, 1861-1865. Vols. 1-2Keifer, Joseph Warren
History
Slavery and four years of war : $b a political history of slavery in the United States, together with a narrative of the campaigns and battles of the Civil War in which the author took part, 1861-1865. Vols. 1-2
Keifer, Joseph Warren
Slavery -- United States; United States -- History -- Civil War, 1861-1865 -- Campaigns
"Every citizen has a right to take with him into the Territory any
article of property which the Constitution of the United States
recognizes as property.
"The Constitution of the United States recognizes slaves as property,
and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress
cannot exercise any more authority on property of that description
than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other
kind.
"The act of Congress, therefore, prohibiting a citizen of the United
States from taking with him his slaves when he removes to the
Territory in question to reside, is an exercise of authority over
private property which is not warranted by the Constitution--and
the removal of the plaintiff, by his owner, to that Territory, gave
him no title to freedom.
"The plaintiff himself acquired no title to freedom by being taken
by his owner to Rock Island, in Illinois, and brought back to
Missouri. This court has heretofore decided that the status or
condition of a person of African descent depended on the laws of
the State in which he resided."
Thus the highest and most august judicial tribunal of this country
pronounced doctrines abhorrent to the age, overthrowing the acts
and practices of the fathers and framers of the Republic, and
pronouncing the Ordinance of 1787, in so far as it restricted human
slavery, and all like enactments as, from the beginning,
_unconstitutional_.
This decision startled the bench and bar and the thinking people
of the whole country, not alone on account of the doctrines laid
down by the court, but because of the new departure of a high court
in going beyond the confines of the case made on the record to
announce them.
It is, to say the least, only usual for any court to decide the
issues necessary to a determination of the real case under
consideration, nothing more; but the court in this case first
decided that the Circuit Court, from which error was prosecuted,
had no jurisdiction to render any judgment, it having found "upon
the showing of Scott himself that he was still a slave; not even
to render a judgment against him and in favor of defendants for
costs."
In the opinion it is said:
"It is the judgment of this court that it appears by the record
before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri,
in the same sense in which that word is used in the Constitution;
and that the Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason,
had _no jurisdiction_ in the case, and could give no judgment in
it. Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed,
and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want
of jurisdiction."
Having thus decided, it followed that anything said or attempted
to be decided on other questions was extra-judicial--mere _obiter
dicta_, if even that.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account