the Missouri Compromise of 1820, slavery did not exist. Upon being
carried back into Missouri by his master, Scott claimed his freedom upon
the ground that he had been voluntarily carried into a Territory where
slavery was not allowed. The Supreme Court in its decision declared that
Congress had never had the power to pass any law which would forbid
slave-owners settling in Territories and still retaining control of
their slaves. The whole country was at this time in great excitement in
regard to the question whether or not, in the organization of the
Territories of Kansas and Nebraska into States, slavery should be
prohibited, and this decision, whereby the Missouri Compromise Act was
practically annulled, and which pointed directly forward to an
establishment of slavery in the new Territories, raised public
excitement to a fever heat. It was in this decision that the statement
was made that at the time of the formation of the Constitution the
general opinion had been that the colored man had no rights which the
white man was bound to respect. As a direct result of this case a more
determined stand was taken at the North against slavery; the
Anti-Slavery Republican party was strengthened, and their candidate for
President, Abraham Lincoln, elected in 1861, and the catastrophe of
civil war precipitated.

5. The Legal-Tender decisions, given in several cases soon after the
civil war, are important. During the progress of the war the Government,
in order to raise funds to meet its extraordinary expenses, had been
forced to issue slips of paper which represented no deposits of coin in
the Treasury, but only promises to pay certain sums by the Government.
These were declared legal tender, that is, made by law as good as gold
and silver, and the people were forced to receive them in payment of
debts and for commodities. It was questioned whether the Government had
by the Constitution power to do this. The legal-tender decisions