iary thereon, and the manner in which it was received.

In 1854 a case (the well-known "Dred Scott case") came before the
Supreme Court of the United States, involving the whole question of the
_status_ of the African race and the rights of citizens of the Southern
States to migrate to the Territories, temporarily or permanently, with
their slave property, on a footing of equality with the citizens of
other States with _their_ property of any sort. This question, as we
have seen, had already been the subject of long and energetic
discussion, without any satisfactory conclusion. All parties, however,
had united in declaring, that a decision by the Supreme Court of the
United States--the highest judicial tribunal in the land--would be
accepted as final. After long and patient consideration of the case, in
1857, the decision of the Court was pronounced in an elaborate and
exhaustive opinion, delivered by Chief-Justice Taney--a man eminent as a
lawyer, great as a statesman, and stainless in his moral
reputation--seven of the nine judges who composed the Court, concurring
in it. The salient points established by this decision were:

1. That persons of the African race were not, and could not be,
acknowledged as "part of the people," or citizens, under the
Constitution of the United States;

2. That Congress had no right to exclude citizens of the South
from taking their negro servants, as any other property, into
any part of the common territory, and that they were entitled to
claim its protection therein;

3. And, finally, as a consequence of the principle just above
stated, that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, in so far as it
prohibited the existence of African servitude north of a
designated line, was unconstitutional and void.[28] (It will be
remembered that it had already been declared "inoperative and
void" by the Kansas-Nebraska Bill of 1854.)

Instead of accepting the decision of this then august tribunal--the
ultimate authority in the interpretation of constitutional questions--as
conclusive of a controversy that had so long disturbed the peace and was
threatening the perpetuity of the Union, it was flouted, denounced, and
utterly disregarded by the Northern agitators, and served only to
stimulate the intensity of their sectional hostility.

What resource for justice--what assurance of tranquillity--what
guarantee of safety--now remained for the South? Still