A sur-geon in the ar-my, Dr. Em-er-son, of St. Lou-is, owned Dred Scott and his wife Har-ri-et. He took them to Rock Is-land, in I-o-wa, to Fort Snell-ing, Min-ne-so-ta, and then back to St. Lou-is. As they had been tak-en in-to a Free Ter-ri-to-ry the slaves made a claim that they were en-ti-tled to their lib-er-ty un-der the com-mon law of the coun-try. Five of the nine jud-ges of that court were from the Slave States. Sev-en of the jud-ges were of the same mind that the Con-sti-tu-tion “re-cog-nized slaves as prop-er-ty and noth-ing more.” The jud-ges held that as the blacks were not and nev-er could be cit-i-zens, they could not bring a suit in an-y court of the U-ni-ted States. The claim of Dred and Har-ri-et Scott would have to be set-tled by the Court of Mis-sou-ri. It was de-cid-ed that some laws made in 1820 and 1850 which could have helped the case of these two poor blacks, were “un-con-sti-tu-tion-al,” not le-gal or so as to a-gree with the law. They said all this showed, plain-ly, that a slave had no more rights than a cow or pig, and that be-ing the case sla-ver-y could not on-ly be in the Ter-ri-tor-ies, but just as well in the Free States. This sort of be-lief up-set the i-de-as that Mr. Doug-las taught, for he had told all to whom he made his great speech-es that on-ly those who lived in a Ter-ri-to-ry had a right to say wheth-er they would or would not have sla-ver-y.
Out of all these nine jud-ges there were but two who were brave, wise, and just e-nough to hold to the point that it was up-on free-dom and not up-on sla-ver-y that the na-tion had been found-ed. The names of those two men were Mr. Cur-tis of Mas-sa-chu-setts, and Mr. Mc-Lean of O-hi-o.
The peo-ple rose in great wrath at what the sev-en jud-ges had said. With the blood of free-dom in their veins they plain-ly stat-ed that those un-just jud-ges had “de-cid-ed” what they did in the in-ter-ests of sla-ver-y.
The eyes of thou-sands of peo-ple o-pened. They saw now that there was much hard work to be done if there were to be a “Free Kan-sas,” and so they gave their votes and la-bor on the “free” side. Then when the slave-hold-ers felt there were more folks who want-ed Kan-sas free, they sent men from oth-er states in-to Kan-sas and this got in vast num-bers of votes that had no right to be put in-to the bal-lot-box-es.
The two sets had con-ven-tions, the Free States at To-pe-ka and the slave-hold-ers at Le-comp-ton. The pa-pers drawn up in these two pla-ces were sent to Wash-ing-ton. In the cit-y there were men who did their best to get Bu-chan-an to try to have Kan-sas made a state where there could be slaves.
Then it was that Ste-phen A. Doug-las went to see Pres-i-dent Bu-chan-an and have a talk with him. Doug-las was an-gry at what the un-just jud-ges said. The Pres-i-dent said that he, him-self, was in fa-vor of the Le-comp-ton pa-per, that for slaves in Kan-sas. Then Doug-las told him that he should work a-gainst the views there held, and Bu-chan-an told him that a Dem-o-crat could not have i-de-as that would dif-fer from those held by the pres-i-dent and lead-ers of his own par-ty, with-out be-ing crushed by them. So Doug-las went a-way. He knew the slave pow-er would not for-give him for the stand he took, but he al-so knew that if he did not work a-gainst hav-ing slaves in Kan-sas he would lose his own re-e-lec-tion to the Se-nate.
So a new al-ly a-gainst the spir-it of sla-ver-y was gained, though Doug-las did not work in the same har-ness as those who had formed the new par-ty of which we have spok-en—the Re-pub-li-can.