As usual, devoid of factual content. As usual, you sound like James Carville. The decision in Scott was 7-2, not 1-0.
[cr #2005] (1) Taney did espouse racist theories regarding the inferiority, and even the inhumanity, of black Africans. That has been abundantly documented here, and in the texts.
Typical Capitan bullcrap. Such bullcrap relies upon quoting Taney interpreting Federal law. That would be Federal law that permitted slavery in every state of the union. That would be a Constitution that recognized and protected the institution of slavery. That would be Federal law that prohibited the naturalization of -all- non-white persons. Perhaps you think a Constitution, as ratified by every state of the union, that authorized slavery in every state of the union, should be interpreted by a judge to afford equal rights to all. Perhaps you think Federal law that denied naturalization to all non-Whites should be interpreted by a judge to afford equal rights to all. Taney's great sin was telling the ugly truth and documenting it by quoting a series of acts of the New England hypocrites.
In the Treaty of 1783 it was stipulated that his "Brittanic Majesty should, with all convenient speed and without causing any destruction or carrying away any negroes or other property of American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies," etc. Under this treaty negroes belonging to citizens of New Jersey were claimed as their property.
At the first session of Congress, in March 1790, a Quaker society prayed Congress to take jurisdiction of slavery. The House referred the petition to Foster, of New Hampshire; Gerry, of Massachusetts; Huntington, of Connecticut; Lawrence, of New York; Sinnickson, of New Jersey; Hartley, of Pennsylvania, and Parker, of Virginia. They recommended the following: "Resolved, That Congress has no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves or in the treatment of them in any of the States, it remaining with the several States alone to provide rules and regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require." This resolution was passed without opposition.
Concerning the establishment of a mixed international court to adjudicate cases against vessels alleged to be captured slavers, proposed by Lord Castlereigh on behalf of England in a treaty with the United States, November 2, 1818, Secretary-of-State John Quincy Adams said, "The condition of the blacks being in this Union regulated by the municipal laws of the separate States, the Government of the United States can neither guarantee their liberty in the States where they could only be received as slaves nor control them in the States where they would be recognized as free."
In the War of 1812 the British removed a considerable number of slaves to Nova Scotia against the will of the owners. Others were sold to the West Indies. In the treaty of peace, known to history as the Treaty of Ghent, in 1814, negotiated on behalf of America by Messrs. Admas, Russell, and Gallatin, from Northern free States, and Clay and Bayard, from slave States, -- these confiscated slaves were claimed as property, and the British Government was required to pay for them. Payment was refused; this led to a series of diplomatic correspondence until at length, in the convention with Great Britain on the question, May 20, 1820, in which "the United States claimed for their citizens, and as their private property" the removed slaves, negotiated by Albert Gallatin, Richard Rush, Frederick John Robinson, and Henry Goolburn, plenipotentiaries, the question was agreed to be arbitrated before Emperor Alexander, Emperor of all the Russias. This was done according to agreement. The arbitration agreements were carefully prepared, -- Henry Middleton representing the United States and Sir Charles Bagot representing Great Britain. Alexander held that the slaves which had been removed against their masters' wills were lawful and valuable property, and adjudged that Great Britain was liable in damages. At London in 1826, Gallatin representing the United States, and Huskisson and Addington Great Britain, it was agreed that this finding of the emperor was correct, and Great Britain promised to pay to the United States for the benefit of those who had owned these slaves one million two hundred and four thousand nine hundred and sixty dollars. The next year, 1827, Gallatin, a Northern man, under the administration of John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, and with the approval of the administration, actually secured the payment of this sum.
In 1830 the Comet and in 1834 the Encomium were carrying slaves from one port in the United States to another port in the same. Storms drove and stranded both near Nassau, New Providence on the Bahama Islands. The slaves were removed by the wreckers to the island; and detained by the local authorities without the consent of the masters or those in charge of the vessels. In 1835 the Enterprise, sailing from the District of Columbia destined for some Southern, port of the United States "on a lawful voyage and with regular papers," was forced by storm to put in at Port Hamilton, Bermuda Island. There her slaves were forcibly seized and detained by the local authorities. In each case the owners protested in vain, after which they applied to our government for redress. Each of these islands at each respective time was under the jurisdiction of England. Our authorities demanded the value of the slaves of the British government. The claim was based upon the property alleged to exist in the negroes. After years of negotiations with Great Britain redress was obtained in the two first cases-the full value of the slaves being paid to the United States to be paid to their owners. England refused payment in the case of the negroes taken from the Enterprise, because she said slavery was illegal in her territory -- her emancipation law having taken effect in the island of Bermuda before the time the slaves from the Enterprise were carried there. Hence, having touched free soil, she claimed they became free, and insisted that they no longer remained property. The matter was brought before the Senate, and in a series of resolutions the Senate declared the slaves to be property, and that the property rights "as established by the laws of the State to which they belonged" were not affected by their being upon Bermuda Island free soil. Then the declaration continued thus: "Resolved, That the brig Enterprise which was forced unavoidably by stress of weather into Port Hamilton, Bermuda Island, while on a lawful voyage on the high seas from one part of the Union to another, comes within the principles embraced in the foregoing resolutions, and that the seizure and detention of the negroes on board by the local authority of the island was an act in violation of the laws of nations and highly unjust to our own citizens to whom they belonged." Every member of the Senate voted for this plain declaration of a violation of the property rights pertaining to the slaves.
As late as March 9, 1853, pursuant to act of Congress approved March 3, 1853, the grandson of Major William Hazzard Wiggs, "a gallant officer of the Revolutionary War," so the record tells us, was paid by the Treasurer of the United States $41,691.21 for the loss of negro slave property sustained by the grandfather at the hands of the British during the Revolution.
[cr #2005] (2) Taney did rewrite and materially change the Dred Scott decision, after delivering it orally, in an attempt to blunt the immediate criticism it had received. The proof for this is manifest, but includes multiple copies of printers proofs, with significant changes and edits, in the National Archives, as well as contemporary accounts of the oral decision which are at odds with the published version.
The proof that there were no "material" changes is provided by Taney and the action, or rather inaction, of the other six concurring justices.
[cr #2005] (3) A simple textural analysis of the published version shows clear evidence of the addition of rebuttal - rebuttal written after the fact. A comparative analysis of the published version versus the documentation from the other justices (dissents, letters, etc), shows that Taney changed the decision.
What does the texture of the paper have to do with anything? Or did you mean textual? Before you use long words, educate yourself to the point where you can fully enjoy a bowl of alphabet soup.
You cannot show a "material" change. You cannot show a change to the holding. As usual, you defecate meaningless blather.
[cr #2005] (4) With his revised Dred Scott opinion, Taney created a monstrosity of a legal problem, because some of his opinion did not have the support of the majority of the Court and few or none of the other justices had the opportunity to review and comment on the revisions. Taney even refused to make a transcription of the oral decision available to another justice.
You have a monstrosity of a factual problem. There is no evidence whatsoever that the holding of the Taney opinion ever lacked the support of the majority. You blather, but cite no statement from any of the six concurring justices.
[cr #2005] As Fehrenbacher notes, "As a matter of historical reality, the Court decided what Taney declared that it decided. The places only the stamp of legitimacy on his opinion however. Whether it was based on sound law, accurate history, and valid logic is another question, still to be considered [in the following chapters of the book] and not absolutely separable from the moral problem inherent in the enslavement of men." (Chapter 14 of 23, last paragraph).
Taney was not the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Morality in the United States. His job, and the job of the other justices, was to interpret Federal law, including the Constitution, as it was, not as they or anyone else felt it should be. It is not the function of the court to strike down a law, or any part of the Constitution as immoral. If the law is wrong, then the law should be changed.
As a historical matter, 7 justices concurred in the holding in Scott v. Sandford.
As a historical matter, when capitan_refugio is challenged to argue on the merits, he cannot or will not do it.
Taney was not the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Morality in the United States. His job, and the job of the other justices, was to interpret Federal law, including the Constitution, as it was, not as they or anyone else felt it should be.
Concurring bump.
capitan attributes, for the purpose of demonizing Taney, personal animus against Negroes that may or may not have been there. But if Taney were, as you say, doing his job, then what is reflected in Dred Scott is not prejudice and racism in Taney and the South, but prejudice and racism in all of 18th-century society.
But our more generous attribution of these biases to the rest of the country doesn't comport with capitan's purpose, so we get the tirade against Taney, and not a word, not a scrap of acceptance of your point, that Lincoln shared these prejudices, and that the Civil War was not the great crusade to "liberate" the Negro that the revisionists say it was, but rather an extraconstitutional remedy for getting rid of the Negro -- and burning down the South to achieve it, if necessary.
Aside from the fact that Taney's published decision was never seen in full by the other justices, prior to publication (which suggests that the published decision was, indeed, 1-0), you need to go back and actually read chapters 12-14.
"Typical Capitan bullcrap. Such bullcrap relies upon quoting Taney interpreting Federal law."
The rest of your post is typical Taney idol-worship and rationalization.