[DiogenesLamp]

More cockamamie nonsense the truth of which we've reviewed at length but you just can't accept and still keep your coveted C.L.C.P.

I do not even know what you mean by "C.L.C.P", but I am long accustomed to you using the phrase "cockamamie nonsense" whenever you've come up against something you can't refute.

Dred Scott loses his case strictly from Article IV, Section 2. Indeed, you would have thought any competent attorney of the era would have advised him against filing it because so long as Article IV, Section 2 remained part of the Constitution, no state law of any sort (outside the laws of the state holding him) could rescue him from his condition.

But I guess they had irrational liberal lawyers back then too, who would hope courts would ignore the plain letter of the law, and make something up more to their liking based on emotional pleading.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I do not even know what you mean by "C.L.C.P", but I am long accustomed to you using the phrase "cockamamie nonsense" whenever you've come up against something you can't refute."

Certified Lost Cause Propagandist.
Awarded only to those who stick to their stories, no matter what.
Certified Fellow Lost Cause Propagandist is someone who not only repeats Lost Cause orthodoxy flawlessly, but also contributes new arguments to the cannon.
I think you could easily apply for "fellow" level certification, if you didn't already. ;-)

DiogenesLamp: "Dred Scott loses his case strictly from Article IV, Section 2.
Indeed, you would have thought any competent attorney of the era would have advised him against filing it because so long as Article IV, Section 2 remained part of the Constitution, no state law of any sort (outside the laws of the state holding him) could rescue him from his condition."

Here, for example -- I've never before seen a Lost Causer with the Brass B*lls & BS (BB&BS is a CLCP merit badge) to come right out & defend Dred Scott, so that should surely merit you something extra.

As for the validity of your claim here -- the Dred Scott decision was notable in overturning decades of stare decisis recognizing slaves as freed if kept too long in free-states or territories.
So Dred Scott (the man) simply did what many others had done before in suing for his freedom.

We see now, the Dred Scott decision represented the slave-power's legal high-water mark and the event behind Lincoln's "House Divided" speech:

Lincoln himself said one more decision like Dred Scott would make the USA an all-slave nation:

"...Put that and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a state to exclude slavery from its limits...
Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States.
Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown.
We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave..."

So, what do you know, it was "slavery, slavery, slavery" after all!
Of course making slavery "alike lawful in all the States," is what the Confederate Constitution did, and a logical reason why Confederates states "rejected" Jefferson Davis' Corwin amendment -- they had a much better offer!