time and way, whether it meets our views or not. But from
the revelation of his purpose concerning the descendants of the three
progenitors of the human race after the flood, it is manifest that the
children of Ham were to be a servile race; as their final
disinthrallment is nowhere spoken of, it is exceedingly improbable that
slavery will cease to exist till the end of time. It is true that
Ethiopia shall stretch forth her hands to God; but this is being
fulfilled on a grander scale than ever before has been witnessed, even
in our midst, in this Western World, where God has enlarged Japheth,
where he dwells in the tents of Shem, and where Cainan is his servant.

PORT GIBSON, MISSISSIPPI, _February 22, 1860_.

DECISION

OF THE

SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES

IN THE

DRED SCOTT CASE.

DRED SCOTT DECISION.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,

DECEMBER TERM, 1856.

DRED SCOTT

_versus_

JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.

DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, _v._ JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.

THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of
the United States for the district of Missouri.

It was an action of trespass _vi et armis_ instituted in the Circuit
Court by Scott against Sandford.

Prior to the institution of the present suit, an action was brought by
Scott for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county, (State
court,) where there was a verdict and judgment in his favor. On a writ
of error to the Supreme Court of the State, the judgment below was
reversed, and the case remanded to the Circuit Court, where it was
continued to await the decision of the case now in question.

The declaration of Scott contained three counts: one, that Sandford had
assaulted the plaintiff; one, that he had assaulted Harriet Scott, his
wife; and one, that he had assaulted Eliza Scott and Lizzie Scott, his
children.

Sandford appeared, and filed the following plea:

DRED SCOTT }
_v._ } _Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court._
JOHN F. A. SANDFORD. }

APRIL TERM, 1854.

And the said John F. A. Sandford, in his own proper person, comes and
says that this court ought not to have or take further cognizance of the
action aforesaid, because he says that said cause of action, and each
and every of them, (if any such have accrued to the said Dred Scott,)
accrued to the said Dred Scott out of the jurisdiction of this