Dred Scott was the “Law of the Land.” It hits me real big (pointing to sensitive heart) when I hear a rebellious attitude directed toward any branch of our supreme federal government.
I don't know if this question has ever been asked: Did the anger generated by the Dred Scott decision send northern fundamentalists on the prod to chivvy the South into war in order to destroy Dred Scott by violence?
Doesn't this remind you of the rage and childish behavior expressed at Trump for winning the election?
Remember the images of liberal kooks screaming at the skies in frustration over the fact that Trump is President?
Well they had these sort of people back in 1858 too; Wealthy Urban Liberals who couldn't stand it when reality intruded into their lives.
Not to my knowledge, perhaps it's because since you and DiogenesLamp are the only two people I've seen speak approvingly of the Scott v. Sandford decision it's never come up. But since you raised it, the simple answer is that there would have been no need to destroy the Dred Scott decision through violence. The bulk of Chief Justice Taney's comments were made in dicta and were not binding a precedent. The Lincoln Administration could have, and would have, challenged much of what Taney wrote in the courts had the Southern rebellion not interfered.
