[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "An abject example of saying nothing while avoiding the obvious evidence of prior ignorance."

And yet... "prior ignorance" is not the issue here, it's a distraction, it's just woodpusher blowing smoke to avoid admitting the obvious, which is that Northern states like Indiana, New Jersey and Illinois all gradually abolished slavery, while in the South slave populations only increased, and no efforts were made to even restrict, much less abolish slavery there.

quoting BJK: "in 1820 the US Supreme Court freed any slaves in Indiana"

woodpusher: "In reply are citations to STATE court opinions which did NOT free any slaves in Indiana."

I can see, you've made a minor distinction, and blown it up beyond any merit.
More accurately stated: in 1820 the US Supreme Court confirmed Indiana laws and rulings which eventually reduced it's slave population from 190 to zero.

The fact remains that Indiana, and others, abolished slavery while no Southern state even seriously restricted it.

woodpusher: "The Polly case was never a U.S. Supreme Court case.
Citing State cases cannot support a claim that the U.S. Supreme Court issued any ruling."

Here again is the wording from that Wikipedia article on Polly Strong:

"The ruling was made on July 22, 1820,[1] based upon the Indiana Constitution, 11th article, section 7,
'There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in this state, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Nor shall any indenture of any negro or mulatto hereafter made, and executed out of the bounds of this state be of any validity within the state.'[6]

Justice James Scott wrote, 'It is evident that by these provisions, the framers of our constitution intended a total and entire prohibition of slavery in this State; and we can conceive of no form of words in which that intention could have been more clearly expressed.'[6]
Strong was declared a free woman.[8]

Lasselle filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States on July 27, 1820.
The court refused to hear the case, upholding the decision made by the Indiana Supreme Court.[9]"

So, now you, woodpusher, tell us you personally can't find evidence of Lasselle's alleged July 27, 1820 appeal and therefore it was never really made.
I'd say, your personal inability to find evidence may indeed suggest something, though exactly what is still an open question.
Possibilities include, did Lasselle claim he'd submitted an appeal when in fact he never did, or maybe, given 1820 travel conditions, the appeal didn't make it all the way to Washington, or having reached Washington, was it informally side-tracked rather than formally refused?
Or, perhaps it's just that woodpusher's research skills are not quite as awesome as he likes to pretend?

And none of these possibilities changes one iota the fact that Indiana's abolition laws and rulings did gradually reduce slaves from 190 in 1820 to zero by 1850.

woodpusher: "Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court never has refused to hear a case.
To each petition for writ of cert, the Court issues an order accepting or denying the Petition."

Now there is a great lawyerly distinction which I'm certain makes a huge difference to... well... ah... nobody outside a law classroom.

woodpusher: "There was a draft of an Appeal discovered in the papers of the attorney, dated July 27, 1820.
There is also an unsupported and unsupportable claim by an anonymous source that an appeal was filed on July 27, 1820. "

Oh look, I guessed right, somebody claimed Lasalle appealed.

woodpusher: " It would seem the only question left is whether the attorney flew first class or took a private jet."

Or, maybe he was already in Washington at the time and just "flew" across the street...

woodpusher quoting: "A denial of certiorari is not a decision on the merits."

And yet... it still has the effect of confirming a lower court's rulings.
Funny how that works.

woodpusher: "The U.S. Supreme Court case does not exist, and BroJoe is unable to kink, cite, or quote the imaginary case.
Neither does the U.S.
Supreme Court order issuing its "refusal" to hear the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court did not say a damned thing, nor can BroJoe quote them saying a damn thing."

And so, amazingly, despite all of woodpusher's lawyerly smoke-blowing, the lower court ruling stood confirmed as the law in Indiana, and slavery was gradually abolished there.

woodpusher: "As for what BroJoe says the Indiana Supreme Court said, Indiana has erected a monument stating the Court said exactly the opposite, BroJoe just leaving out the word "not.""

The Indiana court's words quoted above seem pretty clear, to repeat them here:

"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in this state, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Nor shall any indenture of any negro or mulatto hereafter made, and executed out of the bounds of this state be of any validity within the state.'"

So, woodpusher keeps telling us, over and over, that this quote is invalid, and yet has provided no evidence of that.
Why would anyone believe it?

woodpusher: "We are not talking about the state of Indiana in 1850.
Nor are we talking about your other diversionary, irrelevant bullflop."

That is the only thing we're talking about -- that Indiana gradually abolished slavery.
Every other point you've raised here is 100% lawyerly BS smoke-screen intended only to obscure the fundamental facts.

woodpusher: "Only a majority of justices form an Opinion of the Court.
There was neither a holding of the Court that a Negro could not be a citizen, nor a holding of the Court that the plea in abatement was properly before the Court.
As these were never adopted as Opinions of the Court, discussing them as such is fantasy land.
That Taney’s opinion was captioned Opinion of the Court does not make everything in it an opinion of the Court."

The vote was 7-2, an absolute Southern dominated majority.
Crazy Roger's insane opinions laid the groundwork for the next such SCOTUS ruling which, as Lincoln observed, would turn Northern states in slave states.

That's what turned many pro-Southern Northern Democrats into anti-slavery Northern Republicans and helped elect Lincoln president in 1860.

woodpusher: "The is total make-believe bullflop.
No law ever automatically manumitted anyone, from Somersett to Scott."

Well, you can quibble over the word "automatically", but the most famous example is Pres. Washington, living in Philadelphia during Pennsylvania's gradual abolition period.
Pennsylvania law required, in effect, that Washington rotate his slaves in Philadelphia after a certain defined time-period, or they would be subject to legally imposed manumission.

Here are cases more directly related to Dred Scott:

1. "It was expected that the Scotts would win their freedom with relative ease.[21][24]: 241 
   By 1846, dozens of freedom suits had been won in Missouri by former slaves.[24]
   Most had claimed their legal right to freedom on the basis that they, or their mothers, had previously lived in free states or territories.[24]

2. Among the most important legal precedents were Winny v. Whitesides[25] and Rachel v. Walker.[26]

3. In Winny v. Whitesides, the Missouri Supreme Court had ruled in 1824 that a person who had been held as a slave in Illinois, where slavery was illegal, and then brought to Missouri, was free by virtue of residence in a free state.[23]: 41 

4. In Rachel v. Walker, the state supreme court had ruled that a U.S. Army officer who took a slave to a military post in a territory where slavery was prohibited and retained her there for several years, had thereby "forfeit[ed] his property".[23]: 42 
   Rachel, like Dred Scott, had accompanied her enslaver to Fort Snelling.[23]"

woodpusher: "A slave taken to a free state, while in that free state, might successfully sue for his freedom, but should he return to a slave state, he resumed his status as a slave.
This was upheld in English as well as American law. "

Not true, see examples cited above.

woodpusher quoting: "...local [New York] judge ruled that under New York law the "eight colored Virginians," as the judge called them, became free the moment their owner brought them into the state.
This decision was consistent with precedents dating from the Somerset case (1772)."

So, it appears that you agree with me on this point, or did you not actually read your own quote?

woodpusher quoting on the 1827 British ruling: "Without positive law, the master could not control a slave in England and could not force a slave to leave the realm.
But if a slave did return to a slave jurisdiction, as Grace had, then the law of Eng­land would no longer be in force and the person's status would once again be determined by the laws of the slave jurisdiction."

So it appears that different courts, in this case a British court, ruled different ways on this matter.
The US, we might say, was more "slave-friendly".

woodpusher: "Not only was that lawyer from Massachusetts, he was George Curtis, the elder brother of Justice Benjamin Curtis, who saw no reason for recusal."

So, had Justice Curtis recused himself, the vote on Dred Scott would be, instead of 7-2, 7-1 a near unanimous display of Southern control over the 1857 US Supreme Court, thus even more strongly supporting Northern fears that the US Supreme Court was only one decision away from imposing slavery on Northern states.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Possibilities include, did Lasselle claim he'd submitted an appeal when in fact he never did, or maybe, given 1820 travel conditions, the appeal didn't make it all the way to Washington, or having reached Washington, was it informally side-tracked rather than formally refused? Or, perhaps it's just that woodpusher's research skills are not quite as awesome as he likes to pretend?

I think the overall thrust of woodpusher's point is that the Wikipedia article you keep citing (instead of primary sources like woodpusher is doing) outright states "Lasselle filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States on July 27, 1820.". This is not a claim of no appeal having been submitted, or that it didn't make it to Washington, or that it got informally rejected; this is a direct claim that an appeal *was made* to the SCOTUS. Such an appeal would have a paper trail documenting its existence with the SCOTUS.

Now, if the draft of an appeal dated 7/27/1820 was in the effects of Hyacinthe Laselle (living in Indiana), then it was impossible for said appeal to have been made to the SCOTUS on 7/27/1820 as Wikipedia claims.

Note that this was before the invention of the telegraph, so the only way such an appeal could have been delivered to the SCOTUS was either in person or by mail.

Even if Hyacinthe had booked it the MOMENT the case ended on 7/22, and drafted his appeal on the way, it was not possible to get to Washington D.C. from Indiana in 5 days; note that it would be over 15 years until the first railroad tracks were laid in Indiana, so he would have had to travel by foot.

Maybe he was actually a world-class sprinter/marathon runner.

[woodpusher]

Northern states like Indiana, New Jersey and Illinois all gradually abolished slavery,

Nobody but a simple minded moron, such as yourself, would even consider arguing that any one of the states did not eventually abolish slavery. The case in point was the claim of jmacusa that the state of New Jersey aboished slavery in 1809. No measure of your obfuscatory bullflop can change the fact that New Jersey did not abolish slavery in 1809. As for the intent of gradual emancipation....

Inspired directly by God, Thomas Jefferson espoused gradual emancipation. And while so inspired, Thomas wrote down for posterity that such holy emancipation was to be a precursor for deportation of the Black population, and that their place was to be filled up by free white laborers.

Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson

Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [Blacks] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers.

And did the Great Emancipator not give the original NIMBY assurance to the nation?

But it is dreaded that the freed people will swarm forth, and cover the whole land? Are they not already in the land? Will liberation make them any more numerous? Equally distributed among the whites of the whole country, and there would be but one colored to seven whites. Could the one, in any way, greatly disturb the seven? There are many communities now, having more than one free colored person, to seven whites; and this, without any apparent consciousness of evil from it. The District of Columbia, and the States of Maryland and Delaware, are all in this condition. The District has more than one free colored to six whites; and yet, in its frequent petitions to Congress, I believe it has never presented the presence of free colored persons as one of its grievances. But why should emancipation south, send the free people north? People, of any color, seldom run, unless there be something to run from. Heretofore colored people, to some extent, have fled north from bondage; and now, perhaps, from both bondage and destitution. But if gradual emancipation and deportation be adopted, they will have neither to flee from. Their old masters will give them wages at least until new laborers can be procured; and the freed men, in turn, will gladly give their labor for the wages, till new homes can be found for them, in congenial climes, and with people of their own blood and race. This proposition can be trusted on the mutual interests involved. And, in any event, cannot the north decide for itself, whether to receive them?

As subsequently and approvingly quoted by Abraham Lincoln in his famous Cooper Union address, New York City, February 27, 1860:

Collected Works, Vol. III, pg. 541

Indiana and Illinois are not New Jersey.

Enough states ratified the 13th Amendment that it was certified and became part of the Constitution in 1865, over the objections of New Jersey. New Jersey finally saw the light in 1866 and ratified the 13th Amendment. That brought about their sudden abolishment of slavery.

quoting BJK: "in 1820 the US Supreme Court freed any slaves in Indiana"

No, moron. Not quoting BJK. Quoting jmacusa #53. You joined the conversation late, did not bother to read the thread, and proceeded to spam, not knowing what you were spammig about.

https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4165496/posts?page=53#53

Slavery ended in NJ in 1809. …

53 posted on 7/8/2023, 3:40:20 PM by jmacusa

You didn't say it. I should't have to tell you that you didn't say it.

As a matter of historical fact, stated officially by the state of New Jersey, slavery was the last state to end slavery in 1866.

That Taney’s opinion was captioned Opinion of the Court does not make everything in it an opinion of the Court."

The vote was 7-2, an absolute Southern dominated majority.

The decision was 7-2, idiot. The decision, as stated in the mandate, was to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. You seem to be too legally incompetent to distinguish between the Opinion and the Decision.

FOUR justices were from what were to become Confederate states, FIVE justices were from what were Union states during the Civil War.

Justice Curtis was from Massachusetts

Justice Nelson was from New York.

Justice McLean was from New Jesey.

Justice Grier was from Pennsylvania.

CJ Taney was from Maryland.

Justice Wayne was from Georgia.

Justice Daniel was from Virginia.

Justice Campbell was from Alabama.

Justice Catron was from Tennessee.

Even if one counts CJ Taney from the Union state of Maryland as part of your "Southern dominated majority," there were still four distictly Northern justices, from Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Notably, you do not argue the merits because you have no argument to make. In Scott v. Emerson (1852). As the Supreme Cout noted in Scott v. Sandford, that case was never appealed to the Supreme Court, and was final.

As the Supreme Court of Missouri in the Emerson case of 1852 decided Scott's citizenship status in Missouri, no prior case from that court, or any lower court, was thereafter citable as authority. The law of no other state is cited as controlling in Missouri.

Crazy Roger's insane opinion

Please do cite your insane opinion of something Taney stated as being insane, or even contrary to law. I understand your reticence to state anythig specific because is is easier to hide your own insanity behind generalities where you say nothing specific but allege insanity on the part of Taney. Please identify at least one Taney claim you consider insane or failing your personal standards.

No law ever automatically manumitted anyone, from Somersett to Scott."

Well, you can quibble over the word "automatically", but the most famous example is Pres. Washington, living in Philadelphia during Pennsylvania's gradual abolition period.

Pennsylvania law required, in effect, that Washington rotate his slaves in Philadelphia after a certain defined time-period, or they would be subject to legally imposed manumission.

Remind me. Did Washington ever manumit his slaves in his lifetime or in his will?

You are never lacking in irrelevant bullflop.

Here are cases more directly related to Dred Scott:

"It was expected that the Scotts would win their freedom with relative ease.[21][24]: 241 By 1846, dozens of freedom suits had been won in Missouri by former slaves.[24]

Most had claimed their legal right to freedom on the basis that they, or their mothers, had previously lived in free states or territories.[24]

Among the most important legal precedents were Winny v. Whitesides[25] and Rachel v. Walker.[26]

In Winny v. Whitesides, the Missouri Supreme Court had ruled in 1824 that a person who had been held as a slave in Illinois, where slavery was illegal, and then brought to Missouri, was free by virtue of residence in a free state.[23]: 41

In Rachel v. Walker, the state supreme court had ruled that a U.S. Army officer who took a slave to a military post in a territory where slavery was prohibited and retained her there for several years, had thereby "forfeit[ed] his property".[23]: 42 Rachel, like Dred Scott, had accompanied her enslaver to Fort Snelling.[23]"

Winny v. Whitesides (1824) was overruled by Scott v. Emerson (1852) and was uncitable as precedent.

Rachel v. Walker (1836) had nothing to do with Missouri, and was uncitable as authority to overturn the Supreme Court of Missouri decision in the case of Scott v. Emerson (1852). In Emerson, Rachel v. Walker was cited as case 11 of 14 cases specfically argued to the Court.

As the Court stated in Scott v. Emerson, 15 Mo 576 (1852)

In States and Kingdoms in which slavery is the least countenanced, and where there is a constant struggle against its existence, it is admit­ted law, that if a slave accompanies his master to a country in which [*586] slavery is prohibited, and remains there a length of time, if during his continuance in such country there is no act of manumission decreed by its courts, and he afterwards returns to his master’s domicil, where slavery prevails, he has no right to maintain a suit founded upon a claim of permanent freedom. This is the law of England, where it is said that her air is too pure for a slave to breathe in, and that no sooner does he touch her soil than his shackles fall from him. The case of slave, Grace, 2 Haggard Adm’rl’ty Rep. 94. Story, in his conflict of laws, says, “it has been solemnly decided that the law of England abhors and will not endure the existence of slavery within the nation, and conse­quently, so soon as a slave lands in England, he becomes ipso facto, a free man, and discharged from the state of servitude; and there is no doubt that the same principle pervades the common law of the non-slaveholding States in America: that is to say, foreign slaves would no longer be deemed such after their removal thither.” But he continues, “it is a very different question how far the original state of slavery might re-attach upon the party, if he should return to the country by whose laws he was declared to be and was held as a slave:” Sec. 95, 6. In the case of the commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Ames, 18, Peck, Judge Shaw, although declining to give an express opinion upon this question, intimates very clearly that if the slave returns to his former country where slavery obtains, his condition would not be changed. In the case of Graham vs. Strader, 5 Mon. 183, the court of Appeals in Kentucky held, that the owner of a slave, who resides in Kentucky, and who permits his slave to go to Ohio in charge of an agent for a tempo­rary purpose, does not forfeit his right of property in such slave.

An attempt has been made to show, that the comity extended to the laws of other States, is a matter of discretion, to be determined by the courts of that State in which the laws are proposed to be enforced. If it is a matter of discretion, that discretion must be controlled by cir­cumstances. Times now are not as they were when the former decisions on this subject were made. Since then not only individuals but States have been possessed with a dark and fell spirit in relation to slavery, whose gratification is sought in the pursuit of measures, whose inevi­table consequence must be the overthrow and destruction of our gov­ernment. Under such circumstances it does not behoove the State of Missouri to show the least countenance to any measure which might gratify this spirit. She is willing to assume her full responsibility for the existence of slavery within her limits, nor does she seek to share or divide it with others. Although we may, for our own sakes, regret that the avarice and hard-heartedness of the progenitors of those who are [*587] now so sensitive on the subject, ever introduced the institution among us, yet we will not go to them to learn law, morality or religion on the subject.

Rachel v. Walker was argued to the Court and the losing argument lost.

Do you have any more irrelevant bullflop to spam with, or are you done?

woodpusher: " A slave taken to a free state, while in that free state, might successfully sue for his freedom, but should he return to a slave state, he resumed his status as a slave.

This was upheld in English as well as American law. "

Not true, see examples cited above.

As is your habit, due to willful purpose or incompetence, you cite case opinions that were struck down by a higher court, or are just irrelevant. The applicable precedents were set by R. v. Knowles ex rel Somersett, (1772) 20 State Tr 1, (aka Somerset v Steuart); The Slave, Grace, 2 Hagg. 94 (1833); Strader v. Graham, 51 U.S. 82 (1851); and Lemmon v. The People, 20 N.Y. 562 (1860).

The U.S. Supreme Court in Strader v. Graham was especially on point, as was previously cited and quoted to you.

Also consistent is the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Strader v. Graham, 51 U.S. 82 (1851)

At 93-94:

Every state has an undoubted right to determine the status, or domestic and social condition of the persons domiciled within its territory except insofar as the powers of the states in this respect are restrained, or duties and obligations imposed upon them, by the Constitution of the United States. There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that can in any degree control the law of Kentucky upon this subject. And the condition of the negroes, therefore, as to freedom or slavery after their return depended altogether upon the laws of that state, and could not be influenced by the laws of Ohio. It was exclusively in the power of Kentucky to determine for itself whether their employment in another state should or should not make them free on their return. The Court of Appeals has determined that by the laws of the state, they continued to be slaves. And their judgment upon this point is, upon this writ of error, conclusive upon this Court, and we have no jurisdiction over it.

woodpusher quoting: "...local [New York] judge ruled that under New York law the "eight colored Virginians," as the judge called them, became free the moment their owner brought them into the state.

This decision was consistent with precedents dating from the Somerset case (1772)."

So, it appears that you agree with me on this point, or did you not actually read your own quote?

Unlike you, I both read it and understood it. Since R. v. Knowles, ex re Someset, 1 Lofft (G.B.) 1, (1772) the courts have ruled that if a slave is taken to a jurisdiction that does not recognize the existence of slavery, the slave may petition a court for manumission. Should the same slave return to a slave jurisdiction, as did Dred Scott, the status of slave reattaches and the slave state alone determines the status of the slave. In other words, Dred Scott had no case, had no legal claim to federal jurisdiction, and he quite properly lost in the Missouri Supreme Court and in the United States Supreme Court, despite your collection of spam which you incessantly splat upon the board.

woodpusher quoting on the 1827 British ruling: "Without positive law, the master could not control a slave in England and could not force a slave to leave the realm.

But if a slave did return to a slave jurisdiction, as Grace had, then the law of Eng­land would no longer be in force and the person's status would once again be determined by the laws of the slave jurisdiction."

So it appears that different courts, in this case a British court, ruled different ways on this matter.

No, moron. When deciding cases presenting DIFFERENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, the Court reached different decisions. When the slave litigated while in a free jurisdiction, the slave could not be removed from the jurisdiction by force. However, where the slave returned to a slave jurisdiction, as did The Slave Grace, and as did Etheldred Scott, the law of the free jurisdiction no longer applied and the person's status would be determined by the laws of the slave jurisdiction.

Somerset, Grace, the NY high court in Lemmon v. the People, Scotus in Strader v. Graham, S. Ct. of Missouri in Scott v. Emerson, and Scotus in Scott v. Sandford are all consistent. Litigation presented from a free state good, litigation presented from a slave state no good.

The seven judge majority in Scott was not insane. Your incessant spam is insane.

woodpusher: "Not only was that lawyer from Massachusetts, he was George Curtis, the elder brother of Justice Benjamin Curtis, who saw no reason for recusal."

So, had Justice Curtis recused himself, the vote on Dred Scott would be, instead of 7-2, 7-1 a near unanimous display of Southern control over the 1857 US Supreme Court, thus even more strongly supporting Northern fears that the US Supreme Court was only one decision away from imposing slavery on Northern states.

There is apparently no end to the insane spam. Nobody ever attempted to impose slavery on the Northern states. The North and Lincoln were strongly inclined to prevent the taking of slaves into the Northwest territories which belonged to all the states. Lincoln made quite clear the desires of himself and his fellow travelers.

CW = The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln by Roy P. Basler

Now irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home-may find some spot where they can better their condition—where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. [Great and continued cheering.] I am in favor of this not merely, (I must say it here as I have elsewhere,) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over—in which Hans and Baptiste and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their conditions in life."

-- Lincoln, October 15, 1858, Alton, Illinois, CW 3:312

When we shall get Mexico, I don't know whether the Judge will be in favor of the Mexican people that we get with it settling that question for themselves and all others; because we know the Judge has a great horror for mongrels, [laughter,] and I understand that the people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels.

-- Lincoln, October 7, 1858, Galesburg, Illinois, CW 3:235

Resolved, That the elective franchise should be kept pure from contamination by the admission of colored votes.

-- That got Lincoln's vote, January 5, 1836.

In our greedy chase to make profit of the Negro, let us beware, lest we 'cancel and tear to pieces' even the white man's charter of freedom" [the Declaration of Independence]

Lincoln, October 16, 1854, Peoria, Illinois, CW 2:276

Thenceforward, for sixty-one years, and until in 1848, the last scrap of this territory came into the Union as the State of Wisconsin, all parties acted in quiet obedience to this ordinance. It is now what Jefferson foresaw and intended—the happy home of teeming millions of free, white, prosperous people, and no slave amongst them."

Lincoln, October 16, 1854, Peoria, Illinois, CW 2:249

Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people.

Lincoln, October 16, 1854, Peoria, Illinois, CW 2:268

Have we no interest in the free Territories of the United States—that they should be kept open for the homes of free white people?

Lincoln, August 27, 1856, Kalamazoo, Michigan, CW 2:363

Sustain these men and negro equality will be abundant, as every white laborer will have occasion to regret when he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave n------.

Lincoln, August 31, 1858, Carlinville, Illinois, CW 3:78

Is it not rather our duty [as White men] to make labor more respectable by preventing all black competition, especially in the territories?

Lincoln, August 31, 1858, Carlinville, Illinois, CW 3:79

- - - - -

When, in 1855, Lincoln's best friend, Joshua Speed, asked him to clarify his position on slavery, he said frankly, "I now do no more than oppose the extension of slavery, (CW 2:233, Lincoln's italics). Lincoln said this so often and so loud that it is astounding that some people, even some historians, claim to misunderstand him.

He said it in CAPITALS at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854:

I wish to MAKE and to KEEP the distinction between the EXISTING institution, and the EXTENSION of it, so broad, and so clear, that no honest man can misunderstand me, and no dishonest one, successfully misrepresent me. (CW 2:248)

That didn't deter honest and dishonest men — then or now — and he said it again at Bloomington, Illinois, on September 4, 1858:

We have no right to interfere with slavery in the States. We only want to restrict it to where it is. (CW 3:87)

He said it at Ottawa, Illinois, on August 21, 1858, at the first Lincoln-Douglas debate:

I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. (CW 3:16, italics added)

He said it at the second Lincoln-Douglas debate and the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth debate:

I expressly declared in my opening speech, that I had neither the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the existence of the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or Virginia in doing as they pleased with slavery or any other existing institution. (CW 3:277)

Challenged again at the seventh and final debate, he said it again:

Now I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge [Stephen] Douglas against the disposition to interfere with the existing institution of slavery. (CW 3:300)

He said it in Illinois.
He said it in Michigan.
He said it in Wisconsin, Kansas, Michigan, Connecticut, Ohio, and New York.
He said it everywhere.

We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution, and the pease of the country, both forbid us. (CW 3:435)

One has to feel sorry for Lincoln retrospectively and prospectively. For he declared it and, to use his word, "re-declared" it. He quoted himself and "re-quoted" himself. Yet honest and dishonest men — then and now — continued to misrepresent him, despite the fact that he said it a hundred times:

I have said a hundred times and I have no no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all. I have said that always. (CW 2:492, italics added).

If he said it a hundred times, he said it a thousand times:

I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion, neither the General government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.. (CW 2:471)

Not only did he say it but he cited evidence to prove it.

He asserted positively, and proved conclusively by his former acts and speeches that he was not in favor of interfering with slavery in the States where it exists, nor ever had been. (CW 3:96)

See Forced Into Glory, by Lerone Bennett, Jr., p. 248-250.

- - - - - - - - - -

This is a pivotal point, one that has been masked by rhetoric and imperfect analysis. For to say, as Lincoln said a thousand times, that one is only opposed to the extension of slavery is to say a thousand times that one is not opposed to slavery where it existed. Based on this record and the words of his own mouth, we can say that the "great emancipator" was one of the major supporters of slavery in the United States for at least fifty-four of his fifty six years.

See Forced Into Glory, by Lerone Bennett, Jr., p. 251. Mr. Bennett was an editor with Ebony magazine for about a half century.

- - - - -

To conclude, if you have the courage of more than a cockroach, say what it was that Taney wrote that so inspires your uncontrollable prejudice. Just be prepared to defend your insane prejudice. By all means take the opportunity to read Taney's opinion in the Scott case and argue what is actually there, rather than some crap from Wikipedia.