[nolu chan]

[ftD] As for assailing it's legality, that has done by legal scholars already-as you well know.

You seem incapable of doing so. Try again.

[ftD] It is even questioned if the Court had a right to make a ruling on the case in the first place.

Alas, the Court ruled otherwise.

And the Court did not even know that Sanford had probably never seen Scott much less owned him, and that Scott was really owned by Mr. and Mrs. Chaffee, she being the former Irene Sanford Emerson, sister of John Sanford. Oh, and before I forget, she was the wife of Calvin Chaffee, abolitionist Congressman from Massachusetts.

[fortheDeclaration]

ftD] As for assailing it's legality, that has done by legal scholars already-as you well know. You seem incapable of doing so. Try again. [ftD] It is even questioned if the Court had a right to make a ruling on the case in the first place. Alas, the Court ruled otherwise.

Well ofcourse it did, because Taney was determined to get the ruling in.

And the Court did not even know that Sanford had probably never seen Scott much less owned him, and that Scott was really owned by Mr. and Mrs. Chaffee, she being the former Irene Sanford Emerson, sister of John Sanford. Oh, and before I forget, she was the wife of Calvin Chaffee, abolitionist Congressman from Massachusetts.

The case was put up by the Abolitionists to test the legality of slavery in non-slave states.

Taney abused his power as chief justice and went through intellectual gymnastics to prove that the Founding Fathers did not intend to include the black man when they wrote that all men were created equal.

Let me see, is Dred Scott still considered constitutional today?