George W. Clark to Frederick Douglass, December 20, 1858

JUDGE TANEY—DRED SCOTT—DR. CHAFFEE.

MR. EDITOR: DEAR SIR:—No judicial opinion, since the days of the infamous and bloody Jeffries, has so shocked the moral sense of mankind, so tended to enfeeble the power and majesty of law, nor done so much to bring judges and courts into contempt, as this monstrous perversion and abuse of jurisprudence, called the Dred Scott decision.—But so false is it to history, so distorted are its facts, so unfair and fallacious is its reasoning, so subversive of all the known principles of law, and such a libel is it on our great American Bill of Rights, and so diseased is the old dotard who wrote it with the gangrene of slavery, that its power for evil falls harmless to the ground. Selfish and unprincipled demagogues, and corrupt doughfaced Presidents have tried to ride the ugly thing, booted and spurred, goading its lank and bony frame along, but to a poor and sorry purpose. Its dead and (like the Fugitive Slave Bill) prostrate carcass is now harmful, only from the nauseating stench it emits while in the process of rotting above ground. Pro-slavery magisterials may quote its assumed "authority," and mouth over its diabolical phrases, its solemn mockery of God and the rights of man, but, thank Heaven! the Constitution, embodying and guaranteeing the eternal principles of Justice, Libery and Equality, still remains THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

But I took up my pen to write a few lines on Dred Scott and Hon. Dr. Chaffee, and not of an old fogy slaveholder's lucubrations upon Human Rights and the Constitution of the United States. By the by, would it not be apropos for the Federal Government to constitute a judicature of sea and land pirates to sit in judgment, and write "decisions" on the morality and constutionality of piracy and murder? Why not? as says "the Southerner."

Dred Scott had suffered the rigors of slavery. He had a cruel master. But in 1836, at his own earnest solicitation, he was purchas-

ed from his old hard-hearted owner by Dr. Emerson. Subsequently, Dred fell in love with a slave girl by the name of Harriet, and was, of course, anxious to marry her. But Dr. Emerson would not consent to the marriage, unless he could first purchase Harriet, which he at length succeeded in doing, and the slaves were married. The Doctor was a very frugal bachelor gentleman, and had no use for these slaves other than to serve him.

At length the Doctor married, and in process of time, became the father of one child, a daughter. In 1844, Dr. Emerson died, leaving his entire estate (including his slaves) to his widow for life, and to his daughter after the death of her mother. The brother of the widow, the late J. F. A. Sanford, Esq., of New York, was the executor of the will, and was also made trustee and guardian for the daughter, that he might take the best possible care of the property for both his sister and niece.

In the year 1850, the widow married Dr. C. C. Chaffie, formerly of Nunda, in this State, but at the time of his marriage to the widow, and now, a resident of Springfield, Mass., and member of Congress from that district. He had no knowledge of the existence of these slaves at the time of his marriage to the widow, and when he did learn the fact, learned also that their legal control was placed in the hands of the executor and guardian, Sanford; and having no control over them, he had, of course, no responsibility on account of them.

This state of the case continued up to the "decision" of the Court, and subsequent to the 5th of May, 1857, when Mr. Sanford, the executor, also died, and then the parties in interest could control the matter as they pleased. This took place on the 5th of May, 1857, and on the 20th of the same month, only fifteen days after the Doctor's family got possession of these slaves, they were made free by the forms of law. From the year 1847, to the day of their legal emancipation, they were, however, as morally free, as they were after—no one ever attempting to control

them, or asking or receiving a farthing for their services. It is said they could have had their free papers at any time; but Dred Scott claimed compensation for himself and wife from 1837, which claim Sanford, the executor, resisted, for the reason, as he said, that it would bankrupt the estate.

An attempt has been made to make it appear that Dr. Chaffee lost a re-nomination to Congress in consequence of his connection with Dred Scott—that he in some way owned or held him as a slave. I have been personally and intimately acquainted with Dr. Chaffee for several years, both while he was a resident of this State, and since his residence in Springfield, and when he was a Radical Abolitionist, and believe he would not sustain any other relation to Dred Scott, or the system of slavery, than that consistent with justice and humanity. The reasons why he was not re-nominated to Congress were purely local. The district which he represented was made up of parts of four counties, and Hampden, in which he lived, had had the representation four years, and the other counties, therefore, claimed and got the nomination.

The Doctor has not abated one jot or tittle of his hatred of oppression, nor do I believe he will shrink a hair from the condemnation of slavery, publicly or privately, when occasion demands.

Thus much in justice to the public, and to an old friend.

Yours, respectfully,

GEO. W. CLARK.

ROCHESTER, Dec. 20th, 1858.