Page:A legal review of the case of Dred Scott, as decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.djvu/8

 (and since called Wisconsin, and now Minnesota Territory.) where he continued to hold the plaintiff as a slave until 1838. In 1835 Harriet was the slave of Major Taliaferro, of the army of the United States, who in that year took her to Fort Snelling, and there held her as a slave until 1836, when he sold her to Dr. Emerson, who continued to hold her there as a slave until 1838. In 1836 the plaintiff and Harriet intermarried at Fort Snelling, with the consent of Dr. Emerson, who then claimed to be the owner of both; and Eliza and Lizzie are the fruit of the marriage. Eliza is about fourteen years old, and was born on board a steamboat on the Mississippi River, north of the line of 36° 30′ north latitude; Lizzie is about seven years old, and was born in the State of Missouri, at the military post called Jefferson Barracks. In 1838 Dr. Emerson removed, with the plaintiff and his said wife and oldest child, to the State of Missouri, where they have ever since resided. The defendant is Dr. Emerson's administrator. The plaintiff had previously brought a suit for his freedom in the circuit court of St. Louis County, Missouri, and obtained a verdict and judgment; but on a writ of error, the supreme court of that State reversed the judgment, and remitted the case to the inferior court, where it was continued to await the decision of this suit.

Upon these facts, the jury, by direction of the court, returned a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff alleged exceptions, and brought up the case by writ of error.

The principal points which have been suggested as having arisen in this case, and having been decided by the court, are the following:

1st. That a free negro cannot be a citizen of the United States.

2d. That so much of the Missouri Compromise Act, as prohibited slavery in the Territory of the United States north of 36° 30′, is unconstitutional.

3d. That a person held in slavery in one State may be taken by his master to a State where slavery is prohibited by law, and yet not be entitled to claim his freedom there.

4th. That a slave taken by his master into a free State, if he omits to claim his freedom there, and returns to a slave State, becomes a slave again.

In order to ascertain what the court did judicially determine, we shall be obliged to make a somewhat careful examination and comparison of the opinions of the judges. We also propose to consider the soundness of the positions advanced in these opinions. But first, as a guide in