majority of the judges, not only decided for the master, but
laid down two important principles. One was that no Negro could be an
American citizen or sue in the American courts; the other and more
important that the Constitution guaranteed the right of the slave-holder
to his slaves in all United States territories, and that Congress had no
power to annul this right. The Missouri Compromise was therefore
declared invalid.

Much of the Northern outcry against Taney seems to me unjust. He was
professedly a judge pronouncing on the law, and in giving his ruling he
used language which seems to imply that his ethical judgment, if he had
been called upon to give it, would have been quite different. But,
though he was a great lawyer as well as a sincere patriot, and though
his opinion is therefore entitled to respect, especially from a
foreigner ignorant of American law, it is impossible to feel that his
decision was not open to criticism on purely legal grounds. It rested
upon the assertion that property in slaves was "explicitly recognized"
by the Constitution. If this were so it would seem to follow that since
under the Constitution a man's property could not be taken from him
"without due process of law" he could not without such process lose his
slaves. But was it so? It is difficult, for a layman at any rate, to
find in the Constitution any such "explicit recognition." The slave is
there called a "person" and defined as a "person bound to service or
labour" while his master is spoken of as one "to whom such service or
labour may be due." This language seems to suggest the relation of
creditor and debtor rather than that of owner and owned. At any rate,
the Republicans refused to accept the judgment except so far as it
determined the individual case of Dred Scott, taking up in regard to
Taney's decision the position which, in accordance with Taney's own
counsel, Jackson had taken up in regard to the decision which affirmed
the constitutionality of a bank.

Douglas impetuously accepted the decision and, forgetting the precedent
of his own hero Jackson, denounced all who challenged it as wicked
impugners of lawful authority. Yet, in fact, the decision was as fatal
to his own policy as to that of the Republicans. It really made "Popular
Sovereignty" a farce, for what was the good of leaving the question of
Slavery to be settled by the territories when the Supreme Court declared
that they could only lawfully settle it one w