Is it Revolution they Mean?

Is it Revolution they Mean?

The New York Tribune thus speaks of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case:

“If anybody really supposes or hopes that the dicta of five slaveholders and two dough-faces, making all our Territory slaveholding in spite of itself; it is likely to diminish “political agitation,” he will not have to wait long for evidence that he is sadly mistaken.”

And the Evening Post threatens in the same strain. We quote:

Here are five slaveholding Judges on the bench, disciples of this neologism of slavery- men who have espoused the doctrines lately invented by the Southern politicians, and who seek to engraft them on our code of constitutional law- men who alter our Constitution for us, who find in it what no man of common sense, reading it for himself, could ever find, what its framers never thought of putting into it, what no man discerned in it till a few years since it was seen, with the aid of optics sharpened by eager desire to preserve the political ascendancy of the slave States. We feel, in reaching the opinions of these men, that local political prejudices have gained the mastery of the bench and tainted, beyond recovery, the minds of the majority of the Judges.

What practicable remedy, asks the New York Mirror, do these Abolition journals propose? Does the programme of proceedings contemplate a Revolution, or is it simply Agitation?