The Decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case.Little Rock, Arkansas, Daily Gazette [American](4 April 1857)
The Black Republican papers,
with but few exceptions, so far as we have seen,
are down upon the Supreme Court, for their
decision in the Dred Scott case. The most
opprobious epithets, the lowest Billingsgate language,
are applied to them. Most conspicuous in this
race of blackguardism, as a matter of course, is
the New York Tribune, although it is nearly
neck and neck, between it, and some of its
congenial spirits, hailing from that once worthy city
yclept Boston.
Among the exceptions, we are pleased to name
the N. Y. Times, the organ of Gov. Seward,
from which will be found below, an article worthy
of the serious consideration of every man, be
he Black Republican or what not, that truly
loves his country, and desires to see her
institutions preserved. We also give an article on the
same subject, from that sterling American paper,
the New York Express -- one of the few papers,
by the by, in that great city, which advocated
the election of Mr. Fillmore. This paper has
ever been true to the Constitution, and to the
laws made under it, and as a consequence, has
ever been true to the South. There is a great
deal of good food for thought, in both these articles.
They speak the language of soberness
and truth, and put the issue plainly before the
people, pointing out in unmistakable language,
the consequences that would follow, should
Greely & Co., succeed in carrying out their
wishes and designs.
The New York Times on the Dred Scott Case.-- The Times has the following sensible remarks
on the utter futility of opposition to the decision
rendered by the Supreme Court, in the Scott
case:
The Decision of the Supreme Court.-- We must
decline publishing the numerous communications
that reach us, in regard to the recent decision of
the Supreme Court, in regard to Slavery -- not
because we are inclined in the least to depreciate
its importance, or to acquiesce in its argument --
but mainly, because no practical good can follow
the discussion. When the various opinions of
the several Judges are published, we shall
endeavor to ascertain from them what points of
law have been actually decided, and what have
not, and we shall probably take occasion to
speak hereafter as we had done already, of the
bearing of this action of the Court upon the
future relations of Slavery to the Government
and the country.
There are some discussions in which a journalist
may profitably engage, and some in which he
cannot. Before the late election, it was
legitimate and laudable to resist the election of Mr.
Buchanan; since that event, we have not been
able to perceive the utility of such a line of
argument. It is the business of a newspaper to
deal with pending issues and to aim at practical
results. But when a point is once established --
beyond all chance of being changed -- strength is
wasted in continuing to assail it. The decision
of the Supreme Court, in this instance, as in all
others, is the law of the land. What it has
decided must stand, all the arguments in the
world, to the contrary, notwithstanding. If
we thought we could persuade the Judges to
reverse their own decision, we would gladly
prosecute the endeavor; but we see no special
ground to hope for such a result.
Some of our correspondents appeal from the
Court to the people -- denounce its characters,
repudiate its authority, and strive to arouse
popular hostility against the supremacy assigned
to it by the constitution. We cannot second
those endeavors, for we deem them unsound and
unsafe. They point to one of two alternative --
nullification or a change in the constitution.
The first is treasonable, and the last is Quixotic.
It is very natural that we should dislike the
tribunal which decides against us, but it is not
rational on that account to seek the overthrow
of its authority. The Supreme Court is an
essential part of our federal organization. The
government could not exist without it, any more
than it could exist without the Senate, which is
quite as hostile to freedom, but fortunately not
quite as longlived as the Supreme Court itself. If
any section, or any party, is to seek the annihilation
of whatever branch of the government
happens to be against it, our political contests
will become struggles for national life -- attempts
to tear away, one after another, the limbs of the
body politic.
[<<Previous Editorial]
|
