Replies

But as for his ruling on the legal disposition of Dred Scott, it looks to be consistent with the laws of that Era.

No it was not in anyway consistent with the laws of that era. I posted eariler the example of of Rachel v. Walker and that was just one of dozens of cases where slave state courts found in favor of freedom for the slave in cases identical to Scott.

Taney ignored standing president and then went totally rouge in overturning the Northwest Ordinance as well as the Missouri compromise. More than anyone else, Roger Taney made the Civil War invetiable.

No it was not in anyway consistent with the laws of that era. I posted eariler the example of of Rachel v. Walker and that was just one of dozens of cases where slave state courts found in favor of freedom for the slave in cases identical to Scott.

When you said "state court" I didn't even bother to look at the case. I am well aware that state courts were ignoring the law for a "penumbra" of what they wanted to believe.

Federal overrides state. The rulings of the state court are not even germane, or did you somehow just come up with some newfound respect for the concept of "states rights"?

Taney ignored standing president and then went totally rouge in overturning the Northwest Ordinance as well as the Missouri compromise.

How does a "compromise" override the clear words of the US Constitution? I thought you had to get 3/4ths of the State legislatures to override the constitution?

Till the constitution is overridden, it remains in force, or did you just come up with some new found respect for breaking the Union Compact?

You posted: “Taney ignored standing president(sp) and then went totally rouge(sp) in overturning the Northwest Ordinance as well as the Missouri compromise. More than anyone else, Roger Taney made the Civil War invetiable(sp).”

Precedent Rogue Inevitable.

Geez, you must have been enjoying that single malt last night.