You prefer your Wikipedia bilge to the actual court opinions because your anonymous article says what you want to hear. You refuse to read and comment on the actual court opinions because they do not support either the drivel in Wikipedia, or your posts.”
You assert that the final decision was 7-2, and you assert Justice Grier was one of your Magnificent Seven. Let us look at what Justice Grier wrote, in its entirety, and in all its splendor. It is brief enough so as not to tax your brain too much.
I warned you about wallowing in the mire. You pounced on a simple factual statement which I posted to your good pal DL. You have since wasted your time building a giant strawman. You are just one more Lost Cause drama queen. All that is pertinent is what I stated in the first place. If you have problems with the wiki article, take it up with them. I could copy and paste innumerable sources other than Wiki. Everybody knows the final decision was 7-2. The only dissenters were McLean and Curtis (both Republicans). Here I leave just a brief synopsis from Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Dred Scott decision, formally Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on March 6, 1857, ruled (7–2) that a slave (Dred Scott) who had resided in a free state and territory (where slavery was prohibited) was not thereby entitled to his freedom; that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States; and that the Missouri Compromise (1820), which had declared free all territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30′, was unconstitutional. The decision added fuel to the sectional controversy and pushed the country closer to civil war.”
Otherwise I am out of time for tonight. I could easily, by copy and paste, construct a post even longer than yours full of samples of quotes about the Taney decision and how bad it was. Are you defending Taney? You’d have to one lonely sack of excrement to do that. Let it go man. It’s history and history hasn’t treated it kindly. Quibble if you must.
I warned you about wallowing in the mire.
Actually, you wrote in your #371, "And that's all you're getting from me."
I could copy and paste innumerable sources other than Wiki. Everybody knows the final decision was 7-2. The only dissenters were McLean and Curtis (both Republicans).
You obviously do not know what a concurring opinion is. A concurrence only indicates agreement with the judgment in the case. Unless explicitly stated, as by Justice Wayne in Scott, it does not mean agreement with everything in Taney's opinion.
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed., 2019
concurrence. (15c) 1. Agreement; assent. 2. A vote cast by a judge in favor of the judgment reached, often on grounds differing from those expressed in the opinion or opinions explaining the judgment.3. A separate written opinion explaining such a vote. — Also termed concurring opinion. “Though the judges of appellate courts do not feel obligated to explain their judicial votes in full by disclosing in every case the extent to which they agree or disagree with each thought expressed in the court’s opinion, it is nevertheless common practice to express differences of opinion on some occasions through concurring opinions. Such concurring opinions often serve as the robins that foretell a new spring. They give notice of the possibility of change by expressing minority views that may become majority views in the future for a variety of reasons — among them, changing views and changing personnel of the court. Coincidentally, they reduce the force of the majority opinion as precedent, increasing the likelihood that the rule there stated will be abandoned at some time in the future." Robert E. Keeton, Venturing to Do Justice: Reforming Private Law 29 (1969)
Vincent C. Hopkins, Dred Scott's Case, Ahtneum, 1971, New York, Originally published by Fordham University Press, 1951, 204 pp., at pg. 96
The question of citizenship, like the closely related question of the nature of the Federal Union, was, in 1857, still a debated one. Of the five judges who explicitly treated the issue in the Scott case, only three—Taney, Wayne and Daniel—concluded that, as they construed the Constitution, free Negroes were not entitled to share in the benefits conferred on the citizens of States by Article Four (section two, paragraph one) of the Constitution and, consequently, could not bring suit in the Federal courts. What Nelson, Campbell, Grier, and Catron felt about the matter, they did not say. The question had become further involved by a technical point: Whether the plea in abatement was before the Court at all. As a result, the clarity of the issue and the Court’s opinion on it suffered.
There was majority agreement that Scott was a slave, not a free person.
There was no majority opinion that a free Black person could not be a citizen.
Don. E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case, Its Significance in American Law and Politics, Oxford University Press 1978, paperback edition 2001, at pp. 324, 390.
[324] Three justices held that a Negro could not be a citizen of the United States (Taney, Wayne, Daniel).[324] Six justices held that the Missouri Compromise restriction was invalid (Taney, Wayne, Grier, Daniel, Campbell, and Catron).
[324] Seven justices held that Scott was still a slave, though there were differences on what the final judgment should be.
[390] The order in which the opinions were published in Howard’s Reports did not follow the order of their oral delivery on March 6 and 7, but rather was carefully specified by Taney. Thus, after Wayne’s outright concurrence came the Nelson opinion, presumably because it supplemented that of the Chief Justice with a more extensive treatment of the issue presented by Scott’s residence in Illinois. As we have seen in an earlier chapter, Nelson, writing what he thought was to be the opinion of the Court, avoided the two big issues of Negro citizenship and the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise restriction. So only in a very limited way could it be regarded as a ‘concurring” opinion.
Learn to read a court opinion. And get better sources.
Here I leave just a brief synopsis from Encyclopedia Britannica:“Dred Scott decision, formally Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on March 6, 1857, ruled (7–2) that a slave (Dred Scott) who had resided in a free state and territory (where slavery was prohibited) was not thereby entitled to his freedom; that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States; and that the Missouri Compromise (1820), which had declared free all territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30', was unconstitutional.
McLean and Curtis filed dissenting opinions and did not concur with Taney. Nelson did not concur with Taney about the Missouri Compromise or Black citizenship. I provided the Nelson opinion in full. Clearly, the Encyclopedia Brittanica article is in error in claiming that the Court ruled 7-2 that, "African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States; and that the Missouri Compromise (1820), which had declared free all territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30', was unconstitutional."
Only two justices concurred with Taney that Blacks could never be citizens.
When a source claims that a 7-2 majority fully concurred with all of Taney's comments, it is just revealing the anonymous article author had no business writing the encyclopedia entry.
You can cite all the ridiculous sources you want, but none of them can change the actual court opinions.