Replies

The Court ruled that despite precedents dating back over sixty years, slaves could not be barred from any U.S. territories by an act of Congress or even of a territorial government. ...it foreshadowed how the Court would rule in future cases, even suggesting that the Court would declare state legislation outlawing slavery unconstitutional, it sent shock ways (sic) throughout the nation.

The Court's first major effort at rewriting the Constitution so that it would say what it "should say," rather than what it does say.

The single biggest factor leading to the Civil War, this decision turned out to be an utter disaster for its own side.

It is fascinating that 7 of 9 judges were obviously southern in their sympathies, a reasonably good marker for the degree of southern influence in the federal government as a whole at the time.

When they saw they were losing this influence, largely as a direct result of this idiotic decision, they chose to jump overboard, dragging the rest of the country with them.

The Court's first major effort at rewriting the Constitution so that it would say what it "should say," rather than what it does say.

I have to disagree.

While I find slavery morally wrong. Legally slaves were property. It was clear that the writers of the Constitution had not intended for slaves to be treated as citizens.

Therefore the reasoning that freeing someone's slave was taking their property without due process was legally sound.

There were thousands of years of precedence of slaves being considered property and not having rights.

I abhor that attitude of Justice William Scott, but he wasn't changing the meaning of the Constitution from the intent of its authors.

I don't think the Justices ruled wrongly even though I abhor slavery. I believe that the Constitution needed changed, and fortunately it was.

It is fascinating that 7 of 9 judges were obviously southern in their sympathies, a reasonably good marker for the degree of southern influence in the federal government as a whole at the time.

You assume too much, Sherm. Just because an individual was a damn yankee doesn't mean they harbored love for the slaves, any more than it's a prophylactic for racism today. Don't EVEN try to claim racism is only or even primarily a southern phenomenon.

After additional thought and discussion, I'm changing my opinion. The court's interpretation of the Missouri Compromise as taking property without due process doesn't seem rational. That would mean the legislature couldn't ban anything, because it would be depriving people of property.

I agree with your original assessment. I was wrong.

"The Court's first major effort at rewriting the Constitution so that it would say what it "should say," rather than what it does say."

Bears repeating. And look what they wrought! There is always a price to pay for stupidity and/or political expedience.