Read the excerpt from Justice Curtis’s dissenting opinion, then answer the question that follows.

Slavery, being contrary to natural right, is created only by municipal law. This is not only plain in itself, and agreed by all writers on the subject, but is inferable from the Constitution, and has been explicitly declared by this court. The Constitution refers to slaves as “persons held to service in one State, under the laws thereof.” . . . .

. . . It was certainly understood by the Convention which framed the Constitution, and has been so understood ever since, that, under the power to regulate commerce, Congress could prohibit the importation of slaves; and the exercise of the power was restrained till 1808. A citizen of the United States owns slaves in Cuba, and brings them to the United States, where they are set free by the legislation of Congress. Does this legislation deprive him of his property without due process of law? If so, what becomes of the laws prohibiting the slave trade? If not, how can a similar regulation respecting a Territory violate the fifth amendment of the Constitution? . . . .

For these reasons, I am of opinion that so much of the several acts of Congress as prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude within that part of the Territory of Wisconsin . . . were constitutional and valid laws.

–Dissenting opinion on Dred Scott v. Sandford,
Justice Benjamin Curtis

Which evidence best supports Curtis’s opinion that Dred Scott should be free because he lived in a free territory? Check all that apply.

1)“The Constitution refers to slaves as ‘persons held to service in one State’”

2)“The Convention which framed the Constitution . . . has . . . the power to regulate commerce.”

3)“A citizen of the United States owns slaves in Cuba.”

4)“Does this legislation deprive him of his property without due process of law?”

5)“Acts of Congress as prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude within that part of the Territory of Wisconsin . . . were constitutional and valid laws.”