I have already said that Chief Justice Taney, in pronouncing that fatal judgment, falsified history.

Judicial error is aggravated by such a falsification; and here the evidence is complete.

Nay, more, from the beginning, the axiom of the Chief Justice, which, according to him, no one supposed open to dispute, had been assailed.

Great authorities, great names, together with legislative and judicial bodies, stood forth against it.

This State, planted by Roger Williams, may point with pride to her early record on Slavery.

Strangely, he forgets also an important passage of history, being nothing less than the point-blank refusal of the Continental Congress to insert the word “white” in the Articles of Confederation.

This case, besides constituting an epoch in the history of Liberty, is memorable for the argument of that learned lawyer, Francis Hargrave, undoubtedly a masterpiece of the English bar.

The little humanity commonly observed in persons accustomed from their infancy to exercise so great authority over their fellow-creatures, and to trample upon human nature, were sufficient alone to disgust us with that unbounded dominion.

At the siege of Metz, in 1552, the Spanish general of cavalry applied to the French commander for the return of a fugitive slave; but the latter replied, that the freedom acquired by the slave, according to the ancient and good custom of…

And I remember that of late a Genoa merchant, having brought with him unto Toulouse a slave whom he had bought in Spain, the host of the house, understanding the matter, persuaded the slave to appeal unto his liberty.

That the African was no exception to the prevailing principle in its original vigor appears in subsequent cases.

Unhappily, Slavery, exiled from France, found a home in the French colonies, and then succeeded in obtaining certain privileges even in France.

The counsel of the slaves began by saying: “Two slaves have had the happiness to land in France; they have heard that the air breathed here is that of Liberty.” Proceeding in his argument, the counsel refutes the Dred Scott decision.

Those,” said he, “who have thought to perceive a natural imprint of servitude on the countenances of certain people, instead of consulting reason, have taken for guide only the prejudices engendered by vanity and pride.

Had they listened in silence to the powerful voice which cries at the bottom of the heart of all men, their own heart would have contradicted the error of the mind.

How could usage, or even a positive law, ever give a man a true right of property in the labor, in the liberty, in the entire being of another innocent man who had never consented to it?

In declaring the negroes free, we should not take from the colonist his property,--we should prevent him from committing a crime; and the money paid for a crime has never given the right to commit it.

No modern Abolitionist has ever used stronger language.

Surely Bancroft’s History of the United States should have taught the Chief Justice at least to hesitate.

And when it is considered that this was to put Slavery in the National Constitution, it was nothing less than a criminal falsification; nor should ignorance be an excuse.

Plainly, the Chief Justice who could do this deserves no marble bust by vote of Congress.

His comprehensive office was Justice; his special duty was Liberty.

But these he sacrificed, making Law and Constitution hideous.

Again the Law speaks: Execrandus est, qui Libertati non favet: “Accursed is he who does not favor Liberty.” This is the ancient voice of the Law, older than Constitution and Declaration of Independence, which must not be disobeyed.

Senators say, “Give up.” That is not my habit.