As Fehrenbacher notes on the page 320 capitan_refugio quoted from, "Unfortunately, the opinion that Taney read from the bench was not preserved, and the newpaper summary is inadequate for systematic comparison with the published version."
In other words, your post is your typical crap.
Fehrenbacher continued, "There are, nevertheless, some indications of the extent to which he revised the original document."
[cr #1864] On page 320 of Fehrenbacher's book, the Professor lists some of the changes made by Taney. Fehrenbacher notes:
So in your twisted dementia, what was it that your quoted comment actually referred to? It could not refer to the unpreserved opinion read from the bench and you carefully excised the relevant material to dishonestly misrepresent what Fehrenbacher wrote.
Fehrenbacher, in the paragraph immediately preceding the changes you listed, said this, "This conclusion is partly confirmed by more definite evidence in the National Archives, where two different sets of page proofs of the Taney opinion have been preserved. Handwritten additions to the proofs constitute about eight pages of the version finally published."
As Fehrenbacher makes clear, nobody knows precisely what was read from the bench. What you quoted was additions to two page proofs, neither of which represents either the opinion as read from the bench, or the opinion as finally published.
On page 320 of Fehrenbacher's book, the Professor lists changes made by Taney to two page proofs. Without knowing what was read from the bench, it is not possible to know which parts of the page proofs were read from the bench and which parts were written later.
What you represent as Fehrenbacher listing "some of the changes made by Taney" inevitably leads the reader to wrongly conclude that this refers to changes to the Opinion as read from the bench by Taney.
[cr #1864] [cr #1864] It wasn't an "advanced copy." Curtis requested the text of what Taney had already read aloud in court
As Fehrenbacher relates on page 316, Justice McLean had written to Montgomery Blair on March 30, 1857, "Can it be true that the opinion of the court has been modified in the Dred Scott case?" James Harvey had written to Justice McLean on April 3, 1857, "Taney's had been twice copied for revision, and an application from the Intelligencer to publish was refused, owing to non-completion." Fehrenbacher wrote that "the rumor worried Justice Curtis." It was on April 2, 1857 that Justice Curtis tried to get his hands on an advance copy of the as-yet unpublished opinion. He knew full well he was not asking for a copy of what had been read from the bench, just as capitan_refugio knew. Three Supreme Court justices knew full well of his prior unethical conduct, both on and off the bench, and acted to prevent any such further misconduct. Within a few months, Justice Curtis had submitted his resignation from the Court.
[cr #1606 to nolu chan; Admin Moderator; All]
[cr #1606] How very embarrassing it must have been to you all to have been so unceremoniously slam dunked. Not only did the moderators not pull my posts, they pulled the whole thread instead. It seems your "tight-fisted temper tantrums" did not account to a hill of beans.
[nc] Nothing you have said in your #1636 or elsewhere has responded to the substance of my #1594. I repeat the essence of it here in condensed form.
I have not read Mitchell, but the description in the Hamdi footnote is that the plantiff was a US citizen.
-- capitan_refugio, #1370, 09/18/2004
The provided description is not in a footnote to anything. It is not from any Supreme Court decision. It was written by a public defender attorney and runs from the bottom of page 24 through the beginning of page 25 within the Petitition for a Writ of Certiorari.
Bollman was not about habeas corpus....
-- capitan_refugio, #237, 08/29/2004
Eric M. Freedman in Habeas Corpus, Rethinking the Great Writ of Liberty, devotes his chapters 3, 4, and 5 exclusively to Ex Parte Bollman.
Lemmon v the People was a case which foreshadowed Dred Scott. The Taney Court overturned a New York State statute which immediately freed slaves brought into the state. The decision guaranteed "sojourn and transit" and transit rights to slave-owners through free states. It did not address, to my knowledge, the issue of residence.
-- capitan_refugio, #386, 03/31/2004
The Supreme Court case of Lemmon v. The People does not exist.
Thank you for chiming in> I refer you to the text of Amy Warwick (1862): "But chiefly, the terms of the President's proclamation instituting [67 U.S. 635, 641]...."The Supreme Court finds:
(1) The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war betwenn countries,
(2) The "so-called blockade" was not a blockade under international law, and (3) Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority.
-- capitan_refugio, #649, 09/03/2004
On FINDLAW, bracketed comments in text of case [67 U.S. 635, 641] indicate this report starts at Volume 67, page 635 and you are at the beginning of page 641.
[nc] cr quotes are from pp. 640-642 of the Supreme Court Reporter.
The entirety of the quoted matter was from the Court Reporter's recitation of the Argument of Mr. Carlisle which runs from page 639 to 650. The Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Grier starts at page 665.
All of the findings attributed to the Court are argments of Mr. Carlisle. None was adopted by the Court.
| 635 | 639 | 640 | 641 | 650 | 665 | 682 | 699 |
[court reporter at p. 638] "The case of the Amy Warwick was argued by Mr. Dana, of Massachusetts, for Libellants...."
[court reporter at p. 639] "The Brilliante, by Mr. Eames, of Washington City, for Libellants, and by Mr. Carlisle, of Washington City, for Claimants."
[court reporter at p. 639] "One argument on each side is all that can be given. Those of Mr. Dana and Mr. Carlisle have been selected...."
[court reporter at p. 639] Begins presentation of argument by Mr. Carlisle.
[court reporter at p. 650] Ends presentation of argument by Mr. Carlisle.
[court reporter at p. 650] Begins presentation of argument by Mr. Dana.
[Opinion of the Court] Mr. Grier pp. 665 - 682.
[Dissenting Opinion] Mr. Nelson pp. 682 - 699.
Unfortunately, nolu chan is ignorant and dishonest, as always. You neglect to add that Fehrenbacher's conclusion "is partly confirmed by more definite evidence in the national Archives, where two different sets of page proofs of the Taney opinion have been preserved. Handwritten additions to the proofs constitute about eight pages of the version finally published."
I listed in the previous post, three passages identified by Fehrenbacher with significant changes or additions. The exists additional evidence that these were just the last of the changes made by Taney after sending the opinion to the printer. Fehrenbacher concludes, "It therefore appears that Curtis was substantially correct in his critique of the published opinion."