Summary of Source
The editorial discloses the power that the Court adheres to and whether it should be accountable for the decision making of fugitive slaves. The writer had discussed that in no way did the verdict of the Dred Scott case follow an act of law, but was merely “nullity.” During the settlement, they decided that since Dred Scott’s master had brought him on free land in Missouri or of the United States without having a citizenship, which resulted in him having no case. It continues on to say that the jurisdiction of the case was influenced by opinion, which did not involve any legalities. The text also alluded to previous court cases, such as Marshall vs. Court and the National Back, where Congress was declared to having unconstitutional implementations, that were based on a loose structure.
Summary Context and Point of View
The Court had
…show more content…
The problems lied in the misinterpretation of the clauses that were present in the Constitution, that “was made by the people and for the people; and to the people, while also stating that, “the sovereign power in [the] confederacy, we appeal from this decision. They understand the charter of their liberties, we hope, full well enough to rebuke and defeat, at the polls, this effort to give the whole country up to the domination of the slave power.” This quote supports the political lens as the start of the Civil War because the Constitution is being referred to as an entity, and shows that slavery was a product of legal disputes and restrictions of protecting those who were not looked upon as valuable or human. Lastly, a drawback of this piece of evidence could be the writer is not a witness, nor a Judge of the Supreme Court, so he cannot recount all the factors that were taken into consideration during the