Replies

I thought treaties, such as the Louisiana Purchase Treaty, become the law of the land, and that Congress's action to limit slavery in the Louisiana Territory was declared unconstitutional in the Dred Scott decision. Am I correct in this? I don't know Dred Scott very well.

By your definition none of the states carved out of the Louisiana purchase would have had the ability to outlaw slavery within their borders because of the Lousiana purchase treaty. I don't believe that it limited the ability of Congress and the states to make further rules and regulations governing the territories.

Dred Scott was a different matter. In his opinion Chief Justice Taney did express his belief that Congress did not have the right to outlaw slavery in the territories, using the somewhat tortured reasoning that 'rules and regulations' are not the same as laws. Following the decision and the uproar that followed many up North viewed the Chief Justice's comments in that area as outside the scope of the original case and therefore should be classified as an obiter dictum. I'm not sure that they were right since part of the Dred Scott case involved his living in the Minnesota territory, but I have no doubt that futher cases seeking to clarify the Dred Scott decision would have been forthcoming if not for the rebellion.

Thanks for your reply.

Congress in the Missouri Compromise seemed to be abrogating terms of the Louisiana purchase treaty.

Congress has the right to pass laws, rules, and regulations, as your point out. If these later laws, rules, etc. abrogate the obligations of a treaty, is the treaty broken?

I can just imagine France demanding the territory back because Congress broke the treaty. Not that France had (or has) the power to enforce anything over here, of course.

By your definition none of the states carved out of the Louisiana purchase would have had the ability to outlaw slavery within their borders because of the Lousiana purchase treaty.

I didn't interpret it that way. The treaty says, "in the meantime [i.e., before the territory got incorporated into the Union] they shall be maintained and protected in the enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess".

I took this to mean the treaty would protect the rights of inhabitants until the area in question became a state and got incorporated into the Union. In other words, it covered the rights of inhabitants while the area was a territory. What laws the states passed after they became states would have been governed by US law.