"What do you intend to do about it?" chimes the whole pack. Fair question. We mean to show this decision violates the truth of history and the logic even of the law — and in our humble way, to assist in getting it overruled.
Original passage & context
"We mean to show that this Dred Scott decision is deficient in every element which should entitle it to respect -- that it violates the truth of history and the logic even of the law; and in our humble way, we mean to assist in getting it overruled. [...] When we are ready to surrender sense and reason, conscience and intellect, and all pretension to mental and physical freedom [...] then, and not till then, will we get on our knees to Roger Taney."
Answering the charge that criticizing the Court was itself treason. The Tribune's defense is that the two dissenters said the same thing — that a court's word on questions not properly before it does not bind. Getting it overruled took the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Read it in the original — New-York Daily Tribune, Mar 12, 1857 ↗