[draft] St. Louis March 8, 1860 Joseph H Bassett Esq Dear Sir, Your note which is just received, asks me to state my opinions upon certain points now involved in the current politics of the country. viz: 1. As to the extension of negro slavery into free territory, by authority of the United States. 2. As to the Dred Scott case - what was really determined by the court in that case - 3. Whether the Constitution of the United States does or does not carry slavery into all the Territories of. 4. A homestead bill 5. The admission of the new state of Kanzas. In regard to the various questions I should not be able to answer your letter in the brief time allowed me, but for the fact, that for several, [2] I have thought a great deal on these subjects, & have spoken & written not a little And I should ask to be excused altogether, but for the fact that you are a Delegate to the Chicago Convention. & desire the information for the use of yourself [struck: & your], as a Delegate from the State of Ohio. You do not ask me for an argument or even a statement in detail, & therefore I proceed to answer your inquiries with as much brevity as consits with [clearness]. As to the first - the extenesion of slavery. In my opinion, slavery is "a domestic relation" belonging to & only to the several states where it exists by law. The nation is under no legal obligation to propagate or extend it; & the Government in wisdom & sound policy, ought not to plant it in any free Territory. As to the second - The Dred Scott case - In my opinion, the only point of law determined by the court in that case, is that Scott the plaintiff, being a negro could not be a citizen of Missouri, [3] and therefore could not bring the action in the Federal court, & that for this reason, & this alone, the court had no jurisdiction of the cause, & no power to hear & determine the merits, & give judgment for or against either party. Whatever therefore any of the learned judges may have said about the supposed unconstitutionality of the Missouri compromise Act, I consider outside of the case & of no authority. As to the third - In my opinion the Constitution of the United States does not carry slavery into the Territories. Within & over the States it is the Supreme law, as well where slavery is as where it is not, but it no more carries slavery into Kanzas & Nebraska than it does into Ohio & Pennsylvania. As to the fourth -- The Public Land, It has long been my opinion that the Public lands ought to be as little as possible, the subject of trade & speculation. Being a great national estate, it ought to be kept [4] for the actual use of the poeple [sic], whenever they are able & willing to occupy & improve it; and, to that end, I think it would be a wise & beneficent policy to give freely homes to such actual settlers, as will encounter the labor privation of subduing the wilderness, & thus giving increased value to the remaining public lands. As to the fifth - I think that the New State of Kanzas ought to be admitted without delay, And indeed I suppose that under existing circumstances no serious objection need be anticipated. I write this note in great haste & as I expect to be called on in a few days to write one more leisurely, I would prefer that this should not be published. Though written hurriedly, it is substantially correct, & contains no new opinions, but very old opinions of long standing. Edward Bates