Summary

Horace Gray A Legal Review of the Case of Dred Scott (1857)

As citizens of a slaveholding State, we have no right to complain of our neighbors of Illinois, because they introduce into their State Constitution a prohibition of slavery; nor has any citizen of Missouri, who removes with his slave to Illinois, a right to complain that the fundamental law of the State to which he removes, and in which he makes his residence, dissolves the relation between him and his slave. It is as much his voluntary act, as if he had executed a deed of emancipation. Nor can any man pretend ignorance, that such is the design and effect of the constitutional provision.
Source: Wikisource

Horace Gray A Legal Review of the Case of Dred Scott (1857)

The fact that a man might, by confession in a court of record, make himself a slave, no more shows that he could, by mere consent or contract, reduce himself to slavery, than the fact that a plea of guilty will authorize a sentence of death shows that a man may lawfully consent to his own murder. The impossibility of a man's reducing himself to slavery has been well expressed by the court of appeals of Maryland: "Once free and always free, is the maxim of Maryland law upon the subject.
Source: Wikisource

Horace Gray A Legal Review of the Case of Dred Scott (1857)

States, in which an absolute prohibition of slavery prevails, maintain that if a slave, with the consent of his master, touch their soil, he thereby becomes free. The prohibition in the act, commonly called the Missouri Compromise, is absolute." "Now, are we prepared to say that we shall suffer these laws to be enforced in our courts? On almost three sides the State of Missouri is surrounded by free soil. If one of our slaves touch that soil with his master's assent, he becomes entitled to his freedom.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature