 | Richard Striner - 2006 - 320 páginas
...North: The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed into the sentence which I will now read . . . "The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution!" What is it to be "affirmed" in the Constitution? Made firm in the Constitution — so made that it... | |
 | David L. Lightner - 2006 - 240 páginas
...has made Illinois a slave State." After all, Lincoln explained, if, as the Taney court had avowed, "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution," then it followed that "nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy the right of property... | |
 | Mark A. Graber - 2006 - 300 páginas
...kind to less protection than property of any other description."2 9 Taney overreached when he claimed "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution."210 Still, constitutional practice and constitutional understandings in 1787 accepted... | |
 | Allen C. Guelzo - 2008 - 433 páginas
...State can destroy a right distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United States. The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United States; Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy the right... | |
 | Gillian Russell - 2008 - 250 páginas
...recognition of slaves as property was simply an affirmation of an established contractual relationship: [T]he right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. . . . And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave... | |
| |
... the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. 
