Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1860-02-03
aud by every form Of public opinion;

gress, by the postal service, the press, and
! in all other accessible modes, TO agitate |
without ceasing, until the Southern States,
without sympathy or brotherhood in the
Uniou-worn down by the unequal stuggle
shall be compelled to surrender ignomini-
ously, and emancipate their slaves"
Now, gentlemen, these are allegations
formally put forth. 1t is not for me toques-
ton the motives of the man who makes
them, but take the allegations as | find
them, and l shall attempt to answer them
in detail First Of all appeal to thecoun-
try and history; standing here upon our re-
corded action, and the integrity Of our pre-
vious character, l plead not guilty Of the
charges; not guilty on every count except
one; and to that l plead guilty.
NEGRO EQUALITY SET AT REST.
First, we are not guilty of the purpose
TO "introduce the doctrine of negro equali-
ty into American politics and to make it
tho ground of positive legislation, hostile to
the Southern States" Mark, the crime is
here, that we have been guilty Of "intro-
ducing." Now it is well known, so far as
common rumor goes-we cannot always
Judge of the motives of men-that the
Dred Scott case was gotten up by agree
ment, in advance of legislation, but subse-
quent to the declaration of the power Of
the Democratic party to take possession Of
: Kansas. We did not want any such sub
ject introduced into politics. Why9 Be-
cause there was already odium enough at
| tached to US as being the defenders of the
, negro against the white man. We were
, called already "negro lovers" and it was
t not TO our interest TO get up an issue of
? this kind if we desired so to do. But an
= agreed case was made, as is reported in
Howard's reports. The case came up to
) the Supreme Court of the United States
t from the U. s. District Court of Missouri,
and although am follower of the plough,
= and although he has perhaps studied law
: all his life, / declare that Beriah Magoffin
+ does not know anything about the case
IS there is not common young lawyer that is
e not better posted up in this matter. Gov
G Magoffin does not profess to know anything
! about it-that honorable and high-toned
o gentleman has never made it his study
IS any man can see that who reads his inaug
Is ural address. John G. Breckenridge doe
" understand it, or he is great hypocrite
J. He is ignorant of the question at issue, o
re he is q hypocrite and intended determined,
a to deceive the people of the United States
TO but of course in consequence Of the respec
as have for him, believe that he is utterl
m ignorant Of the questions at issue in tn
ID case. think / can present them so that
IN man of the commonest understanding cal
s. comprehend the case.
IS will state the substance of the thing
N 1t was suit brought by man of colol
ar called Dred Scott, first, l believe, in th
I'd State courts of Missouri, where it was dc
g. cided that Scott was free, then going up
d, think, to the Supreme Court of Missouri
ID where the decision was reversed and sen
'g back. 1t was taken to the circuit court; tn
1t pleadings were made to this extent, that
ne plea of abatement was made--Dred Scot
ri bringing an action declaring thatvi ct armi,
I'd one Sandford had assaulted him, rs ais
ne Harriet Scott, his wife and children. I
ed this, Sandford, who is also upon the recon
I'D and admitted to be, know not if in real
as ty, citizen of New York, pleaded i
by abatement, that Dred Scott and his wife an
ed children, we're his slaves, and that bein
he slaves, or rather to use the language use
| in the pleadings, that he was the descend
MI ant of African slaves, a man of color,
IN negro and therefore, he could not be ci
'as izen of the United States; and Sandfo
IRE called upon the court to throw the case o
hn of court, that they had nc Jurisdiction, al
lor that he, (Sandford) should hold as maste
ias Dred Scott.
: So far as the Dred Scott decision
in- came law of the United States, il is sil
De- ply thus that after the case was twice {
'"- gued in the Supreme Court of the Unit
ei., States, a majority standing seven to two
IL the Justices, decided that man of Afric
vs. blood, descended from parents once slave
''e could not be acitizen of the United State
and therefore could not sue in the courts
the United States, and therefore the Gov
having no Jurisdiction, it was returned wi
M instructions to sustain the circuit court
ec- That is what they decided. Now desi
nj to state, that, in my humble judgmel
his Dred Scott was not the slave Of Sandfol
is and being a free man and man Of col
lde according to the constitution of the Unit
States when it was made, he had right
of sue and had right to be relieved FRI
IN this existence of vi ct armis, and that v
my the opinion of Justices Mclean and Cur
ory and every lawyer that has read the decis
i'm of the court in Howard's Reports, tina
sed have spoken to upon the subject, has in
riably said to me, that the opinion of J
ties tice Curtis is the most conclusive piece
the judicial logic, ever presented in all
books of judicial decisions. / have it
rior home, and l declare that in my judgm
there is no proposition in Euclid more clt
gro ly demonstrated than that. Not that D
to Scott had rightto citizenship, to hold Of
ton and vote, rights which many white persons
for instance women, have not, but that
the had a right to the protection afforded
lion law; that being free man, by being carr
first into free State and then TO the Tt
lati- tory ceded to the United States by FRA
he had right to sue and TO be sued.
and never declared that Scott was entitled tC
tion the privileges of citizen, but the const
tiou says:
tate "The citizens Of each State shall be
but titled to all the privileges and immun
ense of citizens in the several States.n