Browsing named entities in Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas, Debates of Lincoln and Douglas: Carefully Prepared by the Reporters of Each Party at the times of their Delivery.. You can also browse the collection for Dred Scott or search for Dred Scott in all documents.

Your search returned 59 results in 13 document sections:

1 2
Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas, Debates of Lincoln and Douglas: Carefully Prepared by the Reporters of Each Party at the times of their Delivery., Sixth joint debate, at Quincy, October 13, 1858. (search)
ou a few words. We do not propose that when Dred Scott has been decided to be a slave by the court, understanding with the Democratic owners of Dred Scott that they would take it up. I have since asked him who the Democratic owners of Dred Scott were, but he could not tell, and why? Because there ere no such Democratic owners in existence. Dred Scott at the time was owned by the Rev. Dr. Chaffethe Supreme Court of the United States! The Dred Scott decision was pronounced by the highest tribuoccupy the same space at the same time. The Dred Scott decision covers the whole ground, and while he says that I say the Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I never did say that. I df that I never said the Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I have never pretended to know whether Dred Scott's owners were Democrats or Abolitionists, or Freesoilers or Border Ruffians.idence was very strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was declared to be a slave, the owner of him
Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas, Debates of Lincoln and Douglas: Carefully Prepared by the Reporters of Each Party at the times of their Delivery., The last joint debate, at Alton, October 15, 1858. (search)
right to have it there. No man can, who does not give the Abolitionists an argument to deny the obligation enjoined by the Constitution to enact a Fugitive Slave law. Try it now. It is the strongest Abolition argument ever made. I say if that Dred Scott decision is correct, then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a Constitutional right with the right of a slaveholder to have his runaway returned. No one can show the distinction between them. The one is express, so that we can men whose minds are educated to estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota of difference between the Constitutional right to reclaim a fugitive, and the Constitutional right to hold a slave, in a Territory, provided this Dred Scott decision is correct. I defy any man to make an argument that will justify unfriendly legislation to deprive a slaveholder of his right to hold his slave in a Territory, that will not equally, in all its length, breadth and thickness, furnish a
Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas, Debates of Lincoln and Douglas: Carefully Prepared by the Reporters of Each Party at the times of their Delivery., Speech of Hon. Abraham Lincoln, at Columbus Ohio, September, 1859. (search)
essional slave code, or the declaring of a second Dred Scott decision, making slavery lawful in all the Statese, nor to pass a slave code, nor to make a second Dred Scott decision, it is preparing the onslaught and chargfree by territorial legislation. What is that Dred Scott decision? Judge Douglas labors to show that it ilaw, and is unconstitutional. There is the whole Dred Scott decision. They add that if Congress cannot do so its benefit as property, would be hailed by this Dred Scott Supreme Court, and fully sustained; but any legis any State to the contrary notwithstanding. This Dred Scott decision says that the right of property in a slaor the revival of the slave-trade, for the second Dred Scott decision, for the flood of slavery to be poured orade, for the territorial slave code, and the new Dred Scott decision that is to carry slavery into the free Sslave code enforced in our Territories, and a new Dred Scott decision to bring slavery up into the very heart
1 2