Samuel Nelson

Name: Dred Scott v. Sandford — Separate Opinion
Author: Samuel Nelson

Dred Scott v. Sandford — Separate Opinion (1857)

Summary

“Dred Scott v. Sandford — Separate Opinion”, published in 1857, is a work by Samuel Nelson. It explores elements such as the State of Missouri, slave and Fort Snelling.

Quotes from Dred Scott v. Sandford — Separate Opinion (Samuel Nelson)

Samuel Nelson, Dred Scott v. Sandford — Separate Opinion (1857)

“ But how is the case different on the return of the plaintiff to the State of Missouri? Is she bound to recognise and enforce the law of Illinois? For unless she is the status and condition of the slave upon his return remains the same as originally existed. Has the law of Illinois any greater force within the jurisdiction of Missouri than the laws of the latter within that of the former? Certainly not. They stand upon an equal footing. Neither has any force extraterritorially except what may be voluntarily conceded to them. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Dred Scott v. Sandford — Separate Opinion (1857)

“ The argument, we think, in any aspect in which it may be viewed, is utterly destitute of support upon any principles of constitutional law, as, according to that, Congress has no power whatever over the subject of slavery within the State, and is also subversive of the established doctrine of international jurisprudence, as, according to that, it is an axiom that the laws of one Government have no force within the limits of another or extraterritorially except from the consent of the latter. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Dred Scott v. Sandford — Separate Opinion (1857)

“ Nations, from convenience and comity and from mutual interest and a sort of moral necessity to do justice, recognise and administer the laws of other countries. But of the nature, extent, and utility of them respecting property or the state and condition of persons within her territories, each nation judges for itself, and is never bound, even upon the ground of comity, to recognise them if prejudicial to her own interests. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Dred Scott v. Sandford — Separate Opinion (1857)

“ It may regulate the manner and circumstances under which property is held, and the condition, capacity, and state of all persons therein, and also the remedy and modes of administering justice. And it is equally true that no State or nation can affect or bind property out of its territory, or persons not residing within it. No State therefore can enact laws to operate beyond its own dominions, and if it attempts to do so, it may be lawfully refused obedience. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Dred Scott v. Sandford — Separate Opinion (1857)

“ It has been supposed by the counsel for the plaintiff that a rule laid down by Huberus had some bearing upon this question. Huberus observes that
personal qualities, impressed by the laws of any place, surround and accompany the person wherever he goes, with this effect: that in every place he enjoys and is subject to the same law which other persons of his [p462] class elsewhere enjoy or are subject to. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Dred Scott v. Sandford — Separate Opinion (1857)

“ And that, when its code speaks positively on the subject, it must be obeyed by all persons who are within reach of its sovereignty; when its customary unwritten or common law speaks directly on the subject, it is equally to be obeyed. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Dred Scott v. Sandford — Separate Opinion (1857)

“ The ordinance in question, he observes, if still in force, could have no more operation than the laws of Ohio in the State of Kentucky, and could not influence the decision upon the rights of the master or the slaves in that State. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Dred Scott v. Sandford — Separate Opinion (1857)

“ Emerson removed the plaintiff Harriet and their daughter Eliza from Fort Snelling to the State of Missouri, where they have ever since resided. And that, before the commencement of this suit, they were sold by the Doctor to Sandford, the defendant, who has claimed and held them as slaves ever since. ”

Samuel Nelson

Summary

Quotes from Dred Scott v. Sandford — Separate Opinion (Samuel Nelson)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature