[HandyDandy #406] For a decision that ruled that Dred Scott had no jurisdiction....[woodpusher #411] The Court in Scott did not rule that Dred Scott had no jurisdiction, and did not mention standing. Taney opined that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction. The Mandate remanded the case to the Circuit Court with instructions for that court to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
[HandyDandy #412] Surely you know I meant the case had no standing.
Plaintiffs have, or lack, standing to bring a case. The Circuit Court of Appeals may have or lack jurisdiction to hear a case on appeal from a lower court. At the Circuit Court, Scott was the Appellee. The Appellant who brought that action was Sanford. The case had already been heard and ruled upon at the trial court, when brought to the Circuit Court on appeal. The Supreme Court found that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction and lacked authority to hear the Appeal. The Appeal should not have been heard by the Circuit Court, but should have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
In Scott, the Court determined that the Circuit Court below had no jurisdiction, and issued a Mandate to that court to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court did NOT rule that Scott lacked Standing. See my #303 to you wherein I quoted the Mandate that was issued to the Circuit Court:
No. 7Ptff. in Er.
Dred Scott
vs.
John F.A. SandfordIn error to the Circuit Court of the United Stated for the District of Missouri.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby reversed for the want of jurisdiction in that court and that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said Circuit Court with directions to dismiss the case for the want of jurisdiction in that court.
Ch. Jus. Taney
6th March 1857
It was the COURT that lacked jurisdiction.
On this we can agree. That is why my initial instinct was to avoid engaging in an analysis of the case. It is the most controversial case in US history. But that is a very good quote by Erlich. Thank you for sharing. It supports both our sides.What had become most important is not what the Court decided, but what contemporaries thought it had decided.”
That’s what I’ve been trying to get across to you. You’re getting there.......
You have repeatedly claimed the Court decided things that it did not determine. What you or others thought was determined is not supported by the actual opinions. You have been claiming the popular fiction over fact. That is what I have been trying to get across. It does not seem to be penetrating.
However historically important what contemporaries thought had been decided may be, as were their actions based on misbeliefs, the opinions in Scott did not decide much of anything.
”That the nascent Republican party used race as a wedge issue to divide the people, and concocted a fraudulent and moot case and took it before the Supreme Court is acknowledged.”By whom? Don’t you have that backwards? Don’t you really mean to say the Republican Party came into being due to Slavery? You said race.
I should have said slavery as more accurate and important. However, race was also incorporated into the nascent GOP wedge issues. Lincoln was clear and explicit when he stated that he wanted the territories to be for free white people, with no black face among them. When he referred to Mexicans as a race of "mongrels, it was not a slavery issue. When he opined that Illinois could refuse to accept freed blacks, that was a racial issue.
The Republican Party came into being because of the collapse of the Whig Party brand. They needed an issue. They made one up and ran with it. They got power. They even got Blacks elected to congress as Republicans. And then there was The Fraud of the Century: : Rutherford B. Hayes, Samuel Tilden, and the Stolen Election of 1876. Hayes and Republicans got the Whte House and Democrats got the end to reconstruction. And Democrats were the beneficiaries of all those Black Republicans switching parties.
“Scott could not legitimately invoke the jurisdiction of the Court.......”I guess it’s ok when you say it.
No, not dot, dot, dot. "Scott could not legitimately invoke the jurisdiction of the Court with a claim of diversity of state citizenship which depended on his own (non-existent) Missouri state citizenship."
Nice try. Scott was not a citizen of the State of Missouri. The Supreme Court of Missouri so held, and its ruling on state law was binding on the Federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
It's just ok when I say it, but when the U.S. Supreme Court says it, that makes it supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.
"Dred Scott ... probably helped to promote the Civil War, as it certainly required the Civil War to bury its dicta."That quote is not bad. In a cutesy, playful, spinny kind of way. Although in reality we can always count on you for the dicta. Right?
The quote is not of me, but of Dr. Walter Erlich.
Obviously, I do not deliver dicta, and you should probably refrain from using words whose meaning you do not know, as long as you remain too lazy to use a dictionary. You are a victim of dictum. There's cutesy.
”The issue of slavery was used to split the nation for political gain. It got a little out of hand.”Here you turn a big wide corner. Did you know that President Jefferson Davis said on several occasions the he would not give up until the very last confederate soldier was killed?
As for what Jefferson Davis may have said, you have provided no source indicating that he actually said it.
The issue of slavery splitting the nation for political gain back then is analagous to using race to split the nation for political gain today. It refers to dividing them politically, not states seceding. Back then it enabled the election of Lincoln with less than 40% of the vote.
The political split certainly did not depend on any apocryphal statement of Jefferson Davis.
Did you know what Lincoln said to start his speech at Carlinville, Illinois on August 31, 1858? It is in The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, available online at The University of Michigan. See Volume 3, page 77.
The parts before and after the comma are wrong. I know full well the quote wasn’t of you. It is presumptuous of you to presume I did think so. I knew whose quote it was when you said it was by Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter. Note that the quote is not by Erlich. That was another quote which I thanked you for. I am surprised you take personal offense when I critique the quote of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter.
"Dred Scott ... probably helped to promote the Civil War, as it certainly required the Civil War to bury its dicta."
HD: That quote is not bad. In a cutesy, playful, spinny kind of way. Although in reality we can always count on you for the dicta. Right?
”Obviously, I do not deliver dicta.......”
You miss the point. The point being that the Civil War couldn’t “bury the dicta”, because we have you around to incessantly cite the dicta of the case.
”That the nascent Republican party used race as a wedge issue to divide the people, and concocted a fraudulent and moot case and took it before the Supreme Court is acknowledged.”
If this is true (and I am still waiting for you to answer, “by whom was it acknowledged?), they sure fooled Taney and the rest of the SCOTUS!
As for what Jefferson Davis may have said, you have provided no source indicating that he actually said it.
I’ll take that as a “no”, that you do not know he said it. I can provide a link.
”supercalifragilisticexpialidocious”
Coming from you that is really quite atrocious.
August 31, 1858
> “He [Lincoln] said the question is often asked, why this fuss about ni***rs? It is dictated that their position is a small matter, but let us inquire whether it is or not. His speech at the June convention had been much commented upon, and he read an extract from it, and showed wherein it had been misrepresented as to the ultimate triumph or extinction of slavery; that, although the agitation of the question was commenced in '54 with the avowed object of putting a stop to it, yet, the agitation was still increasing. The policy then adopted professed to leave the subject to the people of the territories and save politicians further trouble. Buchanan and Douglas have often promised us that this agitation would cease, but it is still going on, and only last winter was the hottest of any time yet.”
Is this the part of the opening of his speech that you are asking me about? Or was it some other part? I believe I can see an inherent problem with the part I quoted. Can you see it?