[DoodleDawg]

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?

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.

[jeffersondem]

“The Lincoln Administration could have, and would have, challenged much of what Taney wrote in the courts had the Southern rebellion not interfered.”

I don't think anyone disputes that states have the right to nullify illegal supreme court decisions, or illegal acts of any branch of the federal government, but I had not heard that federal inferior courts could overrule the supreme court.

How, exactly does that work? Is that where the president suspends habeas corpus and then orders the inferior courts to overrule supreme court decisions that the president finds objectionable?

[jeffersondem]

“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.”

Just so you'll know, the Dred Scott decision was a 7-2 vote. Not even close.

I don't know that I approve of the decision; I only recognize that it was necessary given the US constitution.

Oh, how I wish New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, Maryland and the other slave states had not enshrined slavery into the US constitution!