Replies

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 are stretching. The only reason the Scott case got to Federal Court is that after he was sold, his ouner was a citizen of New York, not Missouri. And as it turned out that New York resident never had title to Scott, his wife or their child.

But that was the least of the problems with Taney's decision. When he decided he could solve all the sectional differences over the spread of slavery by doning his black robe and nullifying long established law with a stroke of his pen, he drove the nation over the cliff and set the stage for all the smart lawyers to come that they too could twist the clear intent of the Constitution into their desired political outcome.