A high-resolution version of this object is only available for registered users - register here.
High-resolution images are also available to schools and libraries via subscription to American History, 1493-1943. Check to see if your school or library already has a subscription or click here for more information.
- GLC#
- GLC02546.01
- Type
- Documents
- Date
- 7 March 1857
- Author/Creator
- Daniel, Peter Vivian, 1784-1860
- Title
- The opinion of Justice Peter V. Daniel of the United States Supreme Court in the famous Dred Scott case.
- Place Written
- Washington, District of Columbia
- Pagination
- 46 p. : Height: 33 cm, Width: 22.3 cm
- Primary time period
- National Expansion and Reform, 1815-1860
- Sub-Era
- Age of Jackson Slavery & Anti-slavery
Daniel's original manuscript of his opinion on the Dred Scott case, bound into a book. Daniels, a passionate slavery advocate, argues that slavery had more protection under the Constitution than any other form of property. He supports the majority opinion of Justice Taney, but goes farther, asserting the unconstitutionality of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Contains pencil notes, and numerous insertions and deletions in Daniel's hand, including slips of paper. With a later title page in another hand. This copy was used by the printers for the official printing of Daniel's opinion.
Citation Guidelines for Online Resources
- Copyright Notice
- The copyright law of the United States (title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specific conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law.