Pentagon To Remove Memorial To Confederate Dead From Arlington National Cemetery , GOP Lawmakers Try To Stop It

LOL. They settled that issue when they burned Buffalo to the ground in late 1813.

Yeah, most people aren't taught that *WE* started it! And so of course they were intent on returning the favor!

It was a lot more complicated than that. The Wikipedia article summarizes the situation much better than I ever could.

Are you saying that the Republican in Massachusetts did *NOT* own Dred Scott?

I thought that was a pretty clear fact.

Calvin Chaffee’s second wife, Irene Emerson, inherited Dred Scott from her first husband. For much of that time, Dred Scott was “transferred” to Irene’s brother John Sanford. He lived in New York, while Scott lived in Missouri. I don’t know exactly how that “transfer” worked, but the courts recognized that Scott was really owned by the Chaffees who lived in Massachusetts while Scott still lived in Missouri.

Some sources say Calvin Chaffee promoted the law suit as an abolitionist act. Others say he didn’t know about Dred Scott until the case reached the federal level. In any event Chaffee deeded Scott back to the Blow family, who had owned him before the Emersons. They Blows had also become abolitionists, and eventually Republicans, and they freed Dred Scott.

I didn’t want to get into all the details, but I do think it’s simplistic Yankee-bashing to go around touting the factoid that Dred Scott was owned by a Massachusetts Republican, when the circumstances were more complex than that.

Some sources say Calvin Chaffee promoted the law suit as an abolitionist act.

This is a theory I favor. From my experience during my lifetime and various incidents in history, I have come to regard the people of Massachusetts as social activist troublemakers, and I regard their tendency to stir up trouble as a consequence of their puritan history (such as the witch trials)and perhaps the fact there were so many Irish that settled there. :)

Massachusetts likes to stir the pot. Remember John Brown? Charles Sumner?

I didn’t want to get into all the details, but I do think it’s simplistic Yankee-bashing to go around touting the factoid that Dred Scott was owned by a Massachusetts Republican, when the circumstances were more complex than that.

If you believe the man was doing it just to stir up trouble, it seems to me that it is fair to bash him for doing it. If the man was just standing on principle, he could have freed Dred Scott without all the fuss, but he didn't.

Maybe it was all innocent, but Massachusettians seem to like to embroil everybody else in their social engineering sh*t. Gay Marriage comes to mind.

Still, the point remains that D'Souza is being a little bit lazy in his history lessons when he claims that no Republicans ever owned a slave. It was a very foolish claim for him to make.

I expect if the issue was explored in some detail, we might find a lot of them owned slaves one way or the other. The textile mills in the North sure exploited them, whether they owned them or not.

Some sources say Calvin Chaffee promoted the law suit as an abolitionist act.

That certainly may be the case, but should that matter? The Supreme Court certainly thought there were issues of importance when it took the case.

Legally the Lee family still own the land by the shady court dealing or not.
Tell Lee’s didn’t abandon the land or receive any money for it

The Lee family does not still own the property. The land was sold to the government for $150,000 in March 1883 and title passed to the government.

It was a graveyard and uninhabitable. Had they not sold it, the government would have surely taken it under eminent domain.

The mansion, Arlington House, is maintained by the National Park Service as the Robert E. Lee Memorial.

Lee never visited Arlington after the war and he was buried in Lexington, VA. Traveller is buried a few yards away.

The also boxed slavery in, forbidding from the Teritories in 1784.

The Ordinance of 1787 prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory but allowed for the claiming of runaway slaves in the Territory and had no effect in subsequent territories. Slavery was prohibited in the territories, all of them, in 1862.

The Ordinance of 1784 did not include Jefferson's proposed fifth clause: "After the year 1800 there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of them." The clause failed by one vote.

Act of June 19, 1862

https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=62&page=675#

12 Stat. 432, Thirty-Seventh Congress, Sess. II, 1862

Chap. CXI. — An Act to secure Freedom to all Persons within the Territories of the United States.

June 19, 1862

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of this act there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the Territories of the United States now existing, or which may at any time hereafter be formed or acquired by the United States, otherwise than in punishment of crimes whereof the parety shall have been duly convicted.
APPROVED, June 19, 1862

Their is no right to leave,

There is a right to do whatever is not prohibited. An act cannot be unlawful unless there is a law that says it is unlawful. The Constitution was silent on the matter of secession.

The Article of Confederation stated at Article II: "Each State retains its Sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, whichh is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

It is not clear where the states all gave up their sovereignty and independence. For one example, of several, there is the ratification of New York: "That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution."

Similar is the ratification of Virginia, "We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by any authority of the United States."

In 1777, Vermont did, in fact, secede and became a free, sovereign, and independent state until it was admitted as the 14th state.

Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593, 607-608 (1933)

At 606-607

Our conclusion as to the meaning and effect of the Order-in-Council of 1764 would be decisive of the boundary of Vermont upon her admission to the Union were it not for the history of Vermont as a revolutionary government and the consequent uncertainty whether she was admitted under the second clause of Art. IV, § 3, of the Constitution as a new state formed out of the territory of New York, with her boundary accordingly determined by that of New York, or whether she was admitted under the first clause of Art. IV, § 3, as an independent revolutionary state with self-constituted boundaries.
[...]
In view of these facts, the Special Master concluded that the Order-in-Council was nullified by successful revolution, and Vermont was admitted as an independent state with self-constituted boundaries.

Moreover, North Carolina did not join the constitutional union until its ratification on November 21, 1789; and Rhode Island did not join the constitutional union until its ratification of May 29, 1790.

The only states in the constitutional union, per the Constitution, were those that ratified. North Carolina and Rhode Island had not ratified. They had not joined the new union and were not members of it. When Washington was inaugurated, the new union had ELEVEN members. Either two left the perpetual union, or eleven left the perpetual union, but the result was a new union with eleven states.

The Congressional Register, Vol I, II, and III made it exquisitely clear.

The Congressional Register;
or,
History
of the
Proceedings and Debates
of the First
House of Representatives
of the
United States of America:
Namely,
New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,
South-Carolina and Georgia.
Being the Eleven States that have Ratified the Con-
stitution of the Government of the United States.
Containing an Impartial Account of
The Most interesting Speeches and Motions; and accurate Copies of remarkable
Papers laid before and offered to the House.
Taken in short hand,
By Thomas Lloyd
Volume I
New York:
Printed for the Editor, by Harrisson and Purdy
M,DCC,LXXXIX.

The United States of America, the ELEVEN states that had ratified the Constitution.

George Washington
First Inauguration
April 30, 1789

North Carolina ratified 21 Nov 1789

Rhode Island ratified 29 May 1790

EXTRACT FROM THE MASSACHUSETTS MAGAZINE FOR MARCH, 1789

Summary of American news and politics.

[After reviewing (1) New Hampshire, (2) Massachusetts, (3) Connecticut, (4) New York, (5) New Jersey, (6) Pennsylvania, (7) Delaware, (8) Maryland, (9) Virginia, (10) South Carolina and (11) Georgia -- the ELEVEN states which had ratified the Constitution.]

"VERMONT. This state has expressed a wish to be admitted a member of the union," etc.

"RHODE ISLAND. This foreign state has again refused to accede to a union with her late sisters. * * * anxious of enjoying the protection of the union, the inhabitants of Newport, Providence, and other places are determined to sue for its protection, and to be annexed to Massachusetts or Connecticut -- thereby to evince to their perverse legislature, that unless they take measures for a speedy adoption of the constitution their boasted sovereignty as an independent state, will ere long be at an end."

"NORTH CAROLINA. This other foreign state, has lately evinced a disposition to become a member of the united states," etc.

SOURCE: The Republic of Republics, 1878, Bernard Janin Sage, Appendix A, p. 5.

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS,
In General Assembly, September Session, 1789.

To the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the eleven United States of America in Congress assembled:

"The critical situation in which the people of this State are placed engages us to make these assurances, on their behalf, of their attachment and friendship to their sister States, and of their disposition to cultivate mutual harmony and friendly intercourse. They know themselves to be a handful, comparatively viewed, and, although they now stand as it were alone, they have not separated themselves or departed from the principles of the Confederation, which was formed by the sister States in their struggle for freedom and in the hour of danger....

"Our not having acceded to or adopted the new system of government formed and adopted by most of our sister States, we doubt not, has given uneasiness to them. That we have not seen our way clear to it, consistently with our idea of the principles upon which we all embarked together, has also given pain to us. We have not doubted that we might thereby avoid present difficulties, but we have apprehended future mischief....

Can it be thought strange that, with these impressions, they [the people of this State] should wait to see the proposed system organized and in operation? -- to see what further checks and securities would be agreed to and established by way of amendments before they could adopt it as a Constitution of government for themselves and their posterity? ...

We are induced to hope that we shall not be altogether considered as foreigners having no particular affinity or connection with the United States; but that trade and commerce, upon which the properity of this State much depends, will be preserved as free and open between this State and the United States, as our different situations at present can possibly admit....

We feel ourselves attached by the strongest ties of friendship, kindred, and interest, to our sister States; and we can not, without the greatest reluctance, look to any other quarter for those advantages of commercial intercourse which we conceive to be more natural and reciprocal between them and us.

I am, at the request and in behalf of the General Assembly, your most obedient, humble servant.

(Signed) John Collins, Governor.

His Excellency, the President of the United States.

[American State Papers, Vol I, Miscellaneous.]

- - - - - - - - - -

The old government and union had only two widely separated members left, and it was dissolved. RI and NC were not then members of the United States.

Congressional Register, Volume I, 1789,

Page 412, Mr. SHERMAN, June 5, 1789:

But all we are now to consider, I believe, is, that we invite the state of Rhode Island to join our confederacy, what will be the effect of such a measure we cannot tell till we try it.

Page 413, Mr. MADISON, June 5, 1789:

My idea on the subject now before the House is, that it would be improper in this body to expose themselves to have such a proposition rejected by the legislature of the state of Rhode Island

Page 413, Mr. AMES, June 5, 1789:

I should be glad to know if any gentleman contemplates the state of Rhode Island, dissevered from the union; a maritime state, situated in the most convenient manner for the purpose of smuggling and defrauding our revenue. Surely a moment's reflection will induce the house to take measures to secure this object. Do gentlemen imagine that state will join the union? ... If a wish of congress will bring them into the union, why shall we decline to express such a wish?

Page 424, Mr. MADISON, June 8, 1789:

It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this house that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it....

Page 438, Mr. JACKSON, June 8, 1789:

I hold, mr. speaker, that the present is not a proper time for considering of amendments. The States of Rhode-Island and North-Carolina are not in the Union. As to the latter, we have every presumption that they will come in. But in Rhode-Island I think the antifederal interest yet prevails. ...
But to return to my argument. It being the case that those states are not yet come into the Union, when they join us we shall have another list of amendments to consider, and another bill of rights to frame.

Page 441, Mr. GERRY, June 8, 1789:

There are two states not in the union; it would be a very desirable circumstance to gain them. I should therefore be in favor of such amendments as might tend to invite them and gain their confidence; good policy will dictate to use to expedite that event. Gentlemen say, that we shall not obtain the consent of two-thirds of both houses to amendments. Are gentlemen willing then to throw Rhode-Island and North-Carolina into the situation of foreign nations. They have told you, that they cannot accede to the union unless certain amendments are made to the constitution; if you deny a compliance with their request in this particular, you refuse an accomodation to bring about that desirable event, and leave them detached from the union.

The Lee family still own the property. The land was NOT sold to the government for $150,000.
The supreme court said the land was illegally confiscated the $150,000 was compensation money.

compensation money is not the sale of the land it’s money for the loss of the land it was a shady deal from the get go typical government actions.

The Lee family still own the property. The land was NOT sold to the government for $150,000.

Pure, utter bullflop. Your ahistorical claim is made without link, cite, or quote of anything in support of your delusion.

The supreme court said the land was illegally confiscated the $150,000 was compensation money.

More bullflop. Try quoting the Supreme Court opinion saying that crap.

compensation money is not the sale of the land it’s money for the loss of the land it was a shady deal from the get go typical government actions.

Utter nonsense. Compensation money only pertains to cases of property taken under eminent domain. It was not a shady sale to the United States, it was a null and void deal. The Commissioners who sold it at auction had no right of ownership in the land, and the United States could not purchase such non-existent ownership at auction.

United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 197, 200, 219-220, 222 (1882)

[197]
...the United States was not a party to the suit below, and, while defending the action by its proper law officers, expressly declined to submit itself as a defendant to the jurisdiction of the court....
[200]
This court has in a series of cases established the proposition that where the commissioners refused to receive such taxes, their action in thus preventing payment was the equivalent of payment in its effect upon the certificate of sale. Bennett v. Hunter, 9 Wall. 326 ; Tacey v. Irwin, 18 id. 549; Atwood v. Weems, 99 U. S. 183.
- - - - -
[219]
What is that right as established by the verdict of the jury in this case? It is the right to the possession of the homestead of plaintiff. A right to recover that which has been taken from him by force and violence, and detained by the strong hand. This right being clearly established, we are told that the court can proceed no further, because it appears that certain military officers, acting under the orders of the President, have seized this estate, and converted one part of it into a military fort and another into a cemetery.
It is not pretended, as the case now stands, that the President had any lawful authority to do this, or that the legislative
[220]
body could give him any such authority except upon payment of just compensation. The defence stands here solely upon the absolute immunity from judicial inquiry of every one who asserts authority from the executive branch of the government, however clear it may be made that the executive possessed no such power. Not only no such power is given, but it is absolutely prohibited, both to the executive and the legislative, to deprive any one of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or to take private property without just compensation.
- - -
[222]
Hence, taking the present case as an illustration, the United States may proceed by a bill in chancery to quiet its title, in aid of which, if a proper case is made, a writ of injunction may be obtained. Or it may bring an action of ejectment, in which, on a direct issue between the United States as plaintiff, and the present plaintiff as defendant, the title of the United States could be judicially determined. Or, if satisfied that its title has been shown to be invalid, and it still desires to use the property, or any part of it, for the purposes to which it is now devoted, it may purchase such property by fair negotiation, or condemn it by a judicial proceeding, in which a just compensation shall be ascertained and paid according to the Constitution.

The United States did not proceed by a bill in chancery or bring an action of ejectment. The United States did not condemn the property by a judicial proceeding. The United States negotiated the sale of the property for $150,000 and and made such payment.

The Court decided "the right to the possession of the homestead of plaintiff." It decided the seizure was without authority, and the right to possession never transferred to the Commissioners. The action "preventing payment was the equivalent of payment in its effect upon the certificate of sale." The auction sale was invalid because the property had been unlawfully seized, not because compensation had not been given. The seizing party had no lawful possession and could not lawfully sell at auction what did not lawfully belong to them.

I stand corrected 1 (ONE) Republican owned a slave.

Your ahistorical claim is made without link

You sound just like a democrat layer evade the evidence deny and avoid the truth and spin and twist the facts.
If you read the story you would know the facts READ it and learn the truth data in on the record about the supreme court deal with it your wrong 100%.
Old Farmers Almanac page 164
The Lee property was a shake down deal from the start.

The United States negotiated the sale of the property for $150,000 and and made such payment.

Pure BS it was compensation money for the property they stole not the rights to the property the Lee family still onw it.

Old Farmers Almanac page 164

Are you from clownworld? Old Farmer's Almanac to overrule the U.S. Supreme court? They print one of those every year and none is legal authority. As legal authority, it ranks with the study of entrails. You did not even attempt to quote what the entrails told you.

There is a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the matter. I have given you link, cite, and quotes with page numbers. It looks like you have neither stayed at a Holiday Inn Express nor have you watched Law and Order.

The United States negotiated the sale of the property for $150,000 and and made such payment.
Pure BS it was compensation money for the property they stole not the rights to the property the Lee family still onw it.

Your absurd, obtuse claim is still lacking a link, cite or quote from any source of legal authority, much less the Supreme Court opinion, which supports such ridiculous nonsense.

Your fertile imagination is not a source of authority. Neither is some unknown edition of the Old Farmers Almanac. What next, the study of entrails?

In Scott v. Sandford, counsel for both parties jointly filed an agreed statement of facts to include the following:

Before the commencement of this suit, said Dr. Emerson sold and conveyed the plaintiff, said Harriet, Eliza, and Lizzie, to the defendant, as slaves, and the defendant has ever since claimed to hold them and each of them as slaves.
At the times mentioned in the plaintiff's declaration, the defendant, claiming to be owner as aforesaid, laid his hands upon said plaintiff, Harriet, Eliza, and Lizzie, and imprisoned them, doing in this respect, however, no more than what he might lawfully do if they were of right his slaves at such times.

The widow Emerson was the Defendant in the Missouri case which held that Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri. The case dragged on for about ten years.

Dr. Emerson died on December 29, 1843. The Scotts filed a petition for their freedom in the St. Louis Circuit Court on April 6, 1846, naming the widow Emerson as their owner and defendant.

Unless the corpse of Dr. Emerson did the alleged selling, the selling had to take place not later than December 29, 1843. But the case of Scott v. Emerson established the widow Emerson as the owner of Scott in 1846. The widow Emerson was known to have been renting out Dred Scott during this time, after her husband's death. Dred Scott went with Dr. Emerson to Illinois and returned to Missouri, but there is no evidence Dred Scott ever set foot in New York.

The McArthur DEMOCRAT, Vinton Ohio, 26 March 1857, PAGE 2

Dred Scott Owned by a Republican Member of Congress
From the following article, which we copy from the Springfield Argus, it appears that Dred Scott and his family become by, the recent decision of the Supreme Court, the property of the wife of Dr. Chaffee, the Republican member of Congress from Springfield (Mass.) District:
It may perhaps astonish some of our rabid Fremonters, to know that the late decision in the Supreme Court, remanding to slavery Dred Scott and his family, declaring the unconstitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, and establishing the right of slaveholders to carry their chattels into Northern States without affecting their security in them, was obtained in behalf of the family of our present honorable member of Congress. The facts are simply these:— Some years since, Dr. Chaffee, then a widower, married the widow of Dr. Emerson, of Misiouri, who had died, leaving to his wife and only daughter a considerable slave property. Among these slaves were Dred Scott and his family; and as Dr. Emerson, in the performance of his duties as a surgeon in the United States Army, had carried this family into Illinois, they, on his death, claimed their freedom, and brought a suit to enforce it. This suit, thus brought, was defended by the administrator of the estate on behalf and with the consent of the wife of Dr. Chaffee and her daughter, who were the heirs at law. The decison of the Bench that Dred Scott was not a citizen of the United States, and could not sue in the U.S. Court, has remanded him and his famlily to the chattlehood of Mrs. Chaffee. What does the Doctor propose to do with the interesting property? Does he consent to the prosecution, and under cover of his wife's crinoline, propose to keep good friends with the Black-Republicans, by saying that has nothing to do with her estate, and at the same time enjoying with her the benefit of that estate, which does not stop with unfortunate Dred and his family? These questions are open, and naturally suggest themselves to use, as they doubtless will to all who know the facts.

The widow Emerson married Dr. Calvin Chaffee in 1850, before he had entered politics. Pursuant to the law of femes covert, married women could not own property, something the Springfield Argus overlooked. Upon marriage the husband and wife were legally considered to be one, and effectively, for legal purposes, that one was the husband. And thus Dr. Chaffee became the owner of Dred Scott, and the rest of the Scott family, in 1850; and it was Dr. Chaffee who executed the quitclaim deed.

Of course, had Dr. John Emerson sold Scott to Sanford prior to his death, ownership would not have passed to Chaffee. But then Chaffee could not have legally executed the quitclaim deed.

The time between when Sanford died in an insane asylum and when Chaffee executed the quitclaim deed was too short to allow for Sanford's will to have been probated.

Moreover, during the time when the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford was proceeding, he was held in custody of a sheriff who rented him out, with the wages earned going into an escrow account pending the final decision. His wages amounted to about $750. Irene Emerson Chaffee claimed the wages.

http://digital.wustl.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=dre;cc=dre;rgn=div1;view=text;idno=dre1857.0108.111;node=dre1857.0108.111%3A1

26 Saint Louis Circuit Court Record 267
Wednesday May 27th 1857
Dred Scott.
vs. )
Irene Emerson. )
On motion of defendants attorney it is ordered that the Sheriff of St. Louis County do render his account to the court of the wages that have come to his hands of the earnings of the above named plaintiff and that the said sheriff do pay to the defendant all such wages that now remain in his hands, excepting all commissions and expenses to which the said Sheriff may be legally entitled.

Note how the petition refers to the defendant (Irene Emerson) and so artfully avoids any inclusion of the name Chaffee in the claim of wages. This was done the day after the quitclaim deed was executed by Dr. Chaffee.

Only if Dr. Emerson sold Dred Scott to John Sanford before he died in 1843 did Sanford ever obtain ownership as claimed. If Sanford obtained ownership in 1843 or before, neither the widow Emerson nor her second husband Chaffee ever obtained ownership.

The appellate courts do not rule on the facts of a case. The facts are determined at the trial court level. The appellate courts determine if the correct law was properly applied. The lower court in the sham case accepted a false agreed statement of facts. The two sides were really one, working together to concoct a case.

The case that went to Scotus began in 1854. Federal jurisdiction in Scott v. Sandford was based upon a specious claim of diversity of state citizenship, falsely claiming Scott was a citizen of Missouri, and falsely claiming Sanford of New York was the owner of Scott pursuant to a fictitious sale of Scott which could not have taken place later than 1843.

They could not name a married woman as the owner because married women could not own property. They sure did not want to name her husband, the Republican Abolitionist Congressman from Massachusetts as the owner. They could not name any citizen of Missouri as the owner, or there would be no diversity of state citizenship. And so they made up a fictitious sale and a fictitious strawman owner from a state other than Missouri.

The Courts, all the way through Scotus, made no mention of Calvin Chaffee as owner. There was an agreed statement of facts, accepted by the lower court, that John Sanford of New York was the owner. The two parties conspired together to frame and bring the case, and neither side questioned the statement which they jointly stipulated as facts.

Letter of Calvin Chaffee to Montgomery Blair, April 1, 1857, Blair Family Papers, Dred Scott Folder, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress

CONFIDENTIAL
Since the decision of the case Dred Scott vs. J.F.A. Sandford has so profoundly stirred the public mind and some of the pro slavery newspapers have attributed to me an interest in the persons claimed as slaves, my wife, as the widow of the last doct. Emerson, and the sole legatee of the will, desires to know whether she has the legal power and right to emancipate the Dred Scott family ...
If she has this right [illlegible] if you [illegible: would forward?] the necessary papers, she will cheerfully execute them.

Had Dr. Emerson sold Scott to Sanford as claimed, the fact of the widow Emerson being the sole legatee of his will would make no difference. It would only matter had Dr. Emerson died as owner of Dred Scott.

Mrs. Emerson Chaffee could not emancipate Scott or execute a quitclaim deed for Scott. Neither could Calvin Chaffee emancipate Scott. It had to be done in Missouri, by a citizen of Missouri. And so the quitclaim deed was executed by the Republican Abolitionist Massachusetts Congressman Calvin Chaffee in favor of Taylor Blow, a citizen of Missouri.

After the quitclaim deed was executed, Dr. Chaffee wrote to his St. Louis attorney Roswell Field on May 14, 1857, "I desire now, in conclusion of the case, to be privately informed of the act of emancipation, but there should be no publicity given the subject beyond strict legal necessity."

Dr. Chaffee tried to run for reelection in 1858, but he failed to win the Republican nomination. His explanations offered to the Argus had met with refutation and ridicule.

Taylor Blow, born near Huntsville, Alabama, March 26, 1820, (not to be confused with his elder brother Henry Taylor Blow born 1817), was the son of Peter Blow and Elizabeth Blow, nee Taylor, and the brother of Peter Ethelred Blow (b. 1811). Travel documents reflected the first name of Dred Scott was Etheldred. As the child of the then owner of Dred Scott, Taylor Blow grew up with Dred Scott and they played together as young children. The quitclaim deed of Republican Abolitionist Congressman Chaffee from Massachusetts named Taylor Blow as the receiving owner.

Both sides of the concocted case conspired to present false claimed facts to the Court to establish a phony claim of jurisdiction. As the two sides were working together, there was no actual controversy between the parties. John Sanford was falsely claimed as the owner of Dred Scott to establish a false claim of jurisdiction, and to hide the actual ownership (Calvin Chaffee of Massachusetts would have worked fine to establish an owner not a citizen of Missouri). A fraudulent statement of facts could be grounds to dismiss the case and sanction the attorneys.

Calvin Chaffee promoting the case as the abolitionist owner of Dred Scott makes a difference as the named defendant was only used to effect a false claim of federal jurisdiction, and had Representative Chaffee been named as the defendant owner, it would have been viewed very differently. In response to the claim that no Republican ever owned a slave, ownership by Republican Representative Calvin Chaffee of the most famous slave in American history seems a clear refutation. Chaffee owned the entire Scott family for about seven years. He could have effected Scott's emancipation in 1850 as easily as 1857.

In the decision of the case itself, the Supreme Court decided that the lower court had lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because Scott was not a citizen of Missouri and, therefore, the Supreme Court also lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The mandate was issued to remand the case to the lower court with instructions to that court to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.

It comes as a surprise to many that the actual judgment in Scott was to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Missouri had found that Scott was not a citizen of that state. In interpreting state law, the highest court of the state is the ultimate authority. That Missouri finding was binding on the Supreme Court. As Scott was found not to be a citizen of Missouri, Scott's claim of jurisdiction based on his claimed Missouri state citizenship, failed. There was no showing of the requisite diversity of state citizenship between the named parties.

Conclusion of Dred Scott opinion by Taney:

Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution; and that the Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it. Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The Mandate is an official mode of communicating the judgment of the appellate court to the lower court.

As the mandate issued to the Circuit Court in the case of Scott v. Sandford shows, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case, and remanded the case to that court with instructions to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.

Missouri, C.C.U.S.
No. 7
Dred Scott, Ptff. in Er.
vs.
John F.A. Sandford
Filed 30th December 1854.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
March 6th, 1857. —
- - - - - - - - - -
No. 7
Ptff. in Er.
Dred Scott
vs.
John F.A. Sandford
In 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

Writing the Opinion of the Court was originally assigned to Justice Nelson of New York. Nelson's opinion was short and reads like an opinion of the court. Nine opinions were filed. Justice Curtis wrote a very lengthy opinion and leaked it to the press and had it published before any official opinion had been published. Taney reassigned writing the Opinion of the Court to himself, and he wrote a long opinion, mostly a response to the even longer opinion of Curtis. No point of law raised by Taney was an opinion of the Court unless it gathered the support of five of the nine justices. Very little was agreed to by five justices. Almost all of the subsequent controversy was over dicta of CJ Taney, not an opinion or holding of the Court.

Don Fehrenbacher did a box score on issues and found that three had garnered the agreed support of a majority of the justices. Six held that the Missouri Compromise restriction was invalid; seven held the laws of Missouri determined Scott's status as a slave upon his return to Missouri, and seven held Scott was still a slave.

Good information. It clarifies a point that I had gotten involved with in a previous discussion with someone.

I had thought that Taney's opinion was just dicta, and now you have confirmed my understanding of that point.

It also confirms my thinking that a Masshole troublemaker was behind the whole thing.

He kept the man in slavery just to make a political point, and apparently didn't care about the fact that he was holding a man in bondage even though he was supposedly an abolitionist.

He was doing it for the limelight, and not for principle.

He was doing it for a political point that he saw as being in his own self interest.

He was doing it for the limelight, and not for principle.

If he actually wanted the limelight, he would have put the case in his name. The limelight was something he wanted to avoid.

He was doing it for a political point that he saw as being in his own self interest.

You see it as being in his own self interest. You see self-interest everywhere, in everything, and in everyone, so if you are making a reproach, it's meaningless.

No point of law raised by Taney was an opinion of the Court unless it gathered the support of five of the nine justices. Very little was agreed to by five justices. Almost all of the subsequent controversy was over dicta of CJ Taney, not an opinion or holding of the Court.

There are good points, but few remember that Scott v. Sandford resulted in a reversed judgement and Scott's suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

I have been on the viewpoint that Taney essentially "took the bait" of a "bad" case and issued such an overarching, oversweeping Decision that it made Associate Justices reluctant to join him in full. Certainly AJ Curtis was up to the challenge of disagreeing with CJ Taney's reasoning. I can envision Taney reading the Dissent of Curtis and becoming none too happy that a more detailed response was needed.

If he actually wanted the limelight, he would have put the case in his name. The limelight was something he wanted to avoid.

I think that in due time he would have revealed his connection had the case turned out as he had hoped. Same thing with the wealthy Massachusetts backers of John Browns' attempted slave revolt.

He was abusing the court system in his effort to achieve social change, same as modern liberals.

I found out the other day the extent to which Rosa Parks was a deliberate setup to provoke a judicial reaction, and these sorts of judicial activism incidents have long been a hallmark of the left.

You see it as being in his own self interest. You see self-interest everywhere, in everything, and in everyone,

Why yes. Yes I do. If I don't see a personal interest angle, I distrust what I am being told. I believe there is such a thing as the milk of human kindness, but I believe that around serious political footballs with much wealth involved, it's more likely to be about the money than concern for the well being of others. Do you think Nancy Pelosi and her ilk really care about George Floyd?

I am reminded of what Isaac Asimov said of flying. (He was notoriously reluctant to fly.) "I understand the principles of flight, I just don't believe in them."

I understand the principle of altruism, but I just don't believe in it most of the time.