Lot 63
  • 63

Benjamin C. Howard

Estimate
2,000 - 3,000 USD
bidding is closed

Description

  • Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Opinions of the Judges thereof, in the Case of Dred Scott versus John F. A. Sandford. Washington: Cornelius Wendell, 1857
  • Paper, Ink
8vo (8 3/4 x 5 1/2 in.; 222 x 140 mm).  Some browning and spotting, upper right edge of a few leaves discolored (not affecting text). Half black calf gilt; some wear, upper inner hinge renewed, upper right corner of front free endpaper and front flyleaf renewed.

Provenance

John R. Slack (signed on upper pastedown dated September 1857 and on first page of text) 

Literature

Grolier American 68; Howes S218; Sabin 33240

Condition

As described in catalogue entry.
In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general report of the condition of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we urge you to consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a detailed, professional report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and must understand that any statement made by Sotheby's is merely a subjective qualified opinion.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING CONDITION OF A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD "AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF SALE PRINTED IN THE CATALOGUE.

Catalogue Note

FIRST EDITION. Dred Scott was a slave who lived from 1834 to 1838 in Rock Island, Illinois (where slavery was prohibited by the Ordnance of 1787) and Fort Snelling, Wisconsin Territory (where slavery was prohibited by the Missouri Compromise). In 1846 Scott sued for his freedom because of his stay in a free state and free territory.  The Supreme Court's decision that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional  and that Scott's residence in free territory had not made him free greatly accelerated sectional hostility.  Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote the opinion of the Court, and while the decision was not a major factor in the commencement of the Civil War, it certainly damaged the credibility of the Court's legal objectivity in the North.