Not quite.
Breckenridge was a Kentuckian and Kentucky never declared secession.
What we might call "rump Kentuckians" did declare secession and were admitted as the Confederacy's 13th & last star, in the center: 
Posted on 10/20/2018 7:40:49 PM PDT by iowamark
Buchanan was almost certainly a homosexual too....
We can throw Kelo v. New London in there, as well.
Most of the Founding Fathers, including Washington, Jefferson, Madison, slave owners, looked forward to the end of slavery. See the Wallbuilders on The Founding Fathers and Slavery.
To say that the Union Civil War effort was unconstitutional is obviously incorrect. One of the purposes of the Constitution is "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
I would have thought it would have been Nixon (Roe v. Wade decision).
Nice smear by the article author tying Dred Scott to Trump obliquely.
I don’t know that Nixon favored Roe v. Wade, or even knew in advance that it was coming.
ML/NJ
Well, at least he was consistent!
The Dred Scott decision was not necessary to legitimize slavery.
The United States Constitution did that upon adoption. The U.S. Constitution enshrined slavery.
And it was the historical slave states that voted to make it so. Those slave states being: New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Maryland.
Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia were also slave states. Never forget to cast 4/13ths responsibility in that direction.
Wrongly, it should be added. Slavery was written into the U.S. Constitution. Of the original 13 states, 13 of them were slave states so it is no surprise slavery provisions were included in the constitution.
Abortion-on-demand is not found - or implied to be a federally protected right - in the constitution. Arguably the fifth amendment provides protection to the unborn person though I doubt the founders considered abortion regulation to be a federal government enumerated power.
Not quite.
Breckenridge was a Kentuckian and Kentucky never declared secession.
What we might call "rump Kentuckians" did declare secession and were admitted as the Confederacy's 13th & last star, in the center:
Nooooooo, Crazy Roger's "logic" was complete nonsense, and you should be ashamed for suggesting otherwise, FRiend.
The fact is you cannot find a single quote from any Founder which sounds like the "logic" of Crazy Rober's Dred Scott ruling.
That's because our Founders -- even slaveholders like Washington, Jefferson & Madison -- all considered slavery a moral wrong which should be, eventually, abolished.
They all believed that Congress had full authority to abolish slavery in US territories, and had no problems with some states treating freed-slaves as full voting citizens.
So where in hades does this notion come from that Crazy Roger was anything other than stark raving mad??
Democrats but buddies, Taney & Buchanan:
“So where in hades does this notion come from that Crazy Roger was anything other than stark raving mad??”
The other six justices that voted in the majority.
"Enshrined" is your word, not our Founders, FRiend.
In fact, our Founders' attitude toward slavery was very different from "enshrined".
They all believed -- even Southern slaveholders like Washington, Jefferson & Madison -- that slavery was a moral wrong which should be abolished, eventually.
They also believed Congress had full authority to abolish slavery in US territories, an authority which Crazy Roger Taney singlehandedly abolished in his Dred Scott Ruling.
As you well know, Cracy Roger's ruling P.O.'d a lot of Northerners, including this one:
"To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation."
A.L. "House Divided" June 16, 1858
There were nine Supreme Court justices. No one justice “singlehandedly” makes a major ruling on behalf of the court. (Maybe one justice does, at times, serve as gatekeeper or issues a temporary injunction).
I'm a little surprised you did not know this.
jeffersondem: "Wrongly, it should be added.
Slavery was written into the U.S. Constitution.
Of the original 13 states, 13 of them were slave states so it is no surprise slavery provisions were included in the constitution."
That's wrong, it should be added.
In fact, by the time of the 1787 Constitution Convention abolition was law in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Abolition was also dictated by Congress in 1787 in what were then called the "Northwest Territories" -- Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois & Wisconsin.
Founders like President Jefferson submitted plans for gradual compensated abolition and recolonization, and Congress under President Madison (Virginia slave-holder) voted money to support recolonization.
So when Crazy Roger Taney ruled that Congress had no authority to outlaw slavery in US Territories he was, well... blowing smoke up the Constitution's posterior.
“To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation.”
If that was Lincoln’s announced intention, maybe he really did go to war to overthrow the pro-slavery constitution of the United States.
All seven justices voting for Crazy Roger's Dred Scott ruling were Democrats, four of them Southern, two more Pennsylvanians but buddies of President Buchanan.
The two dissenters were NJ & Mass. Republicans.
They all believed that Congress had full authority to abolish slavery in US territories, and had no problems with some states treating freed-slaves as full voting citizens.
Thanks for your PC reply.
Taney (pronounce Tawney, if you care) wasn't making decisions upon what he believed some of the Framers considered morally wrong. He was, as he was supposed to do, making decisions upon what all the Framers agreed to and WROTE DOWN in the Constitution. Among the things WRITTEN DOWN was this in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3:
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.It doesn't really matter what they believed. There may be some ground for arguing that Congress could outlaw slavery in the territories, though arguing that this was a "needful rule," might be considered a stretch. Britannica says:
The Constitution contained no direct allusion to slavery in the territories; the new states and territories clauses did not refer to it, although the fugitive slave clause permitted recapture of fugitives only from the states, not the territories. Consequently, when Missouri sought admission as a slave state in 1819, Congress had no textual guidance, and for the first time it had to extrapolate from what it could determine of the Framers' intent concerning the territories.Actually, Britannica is wrong. Congress didn't have to extrapolate. It had to amend, or do nothing. Taney understood. You, apparently do not.
ML/NJ
I note your weasel-word "maybe", necessary no doubt because most Lost Causers deny the Civil War was "all about" slavery.
Some claim it was "all about" money, others say that "Ape" Lincoln had... well, you know... "manhood issues", sort of like our current President wanting to build a "big beautiful wall".
So you certainly need a "maybe" there, if only to keep other Lost Causers off your case.
But the historical fact is that Lincoln did not in this speech, or anywhere else, ever propose to "start war" to abolish slavery.
In time he did use the Civil War for this purpose, in his words:
Thanks for your insane reply, most people try to hide that from public view, nice to see you're not afraid to show the world how crazy you & Roger both are/were.
ml/nj: "Taney (pronounce Tawney, if you care) wasn't making decisions upon what he believed some of the Framers considered morally wrong.
He was, as he was supposed to do, making decisions upon what all the Framers agreed to and WROTE DOWN in the Constitution."
And so the Democrat insanity begins: redefining words to mean what they wish them to have meant.
In fact, those words meant exactly what Founders thought they meant, not what you or Crazy Roger suppose they might have meant.
And no Founder ever expressed the kinds of opinions Crazy Roger enshrined in Dred Scott.
The fact is the 1787 Northwest Ordnance was not a Constitutional issue, nobody claimed then the Constitution prevented Congress from abolishing slavery there.
That makes Crazy Roger's claims otherwise, by definition, pure insanity, meaning, anti-logical.
ml/nj: " Among the things WRITTEN DOWN was this in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3:"
Referring clearly to fugitive slaves, and nobody for the next 70 years fantasized it referred to legal permanent residents, or that Congress had no authority over territories, until Crazy Roger legislated those things from the Supreme Court's bench.
ml/nj: "It doesn't really matter what they [Founders] believed"
Spoken like a true Democrat.
Of course it matters, first & foremost, what Founders believed their words meant or implied.
In this particular case, there's no evidence -- none, zero, nada evidence -- suggesting Founders themselves intended anything other than fugitives from justice, including slaves.
And that did not include Dred Scott, the man.
ml/nj: "Congress didn't have to extrapolate.
It had to amend, or do nothing.
Taney understood.
You, apparently do not."
Neither Taney nor you had any authority to overthrow Founders' Original Intent in their Constitution.
Crazy Roger's excuse is simple insanity.
What's yours?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.