I submit that Douglas was ingenuous and wrong. That was why southern democrats felt the need to run two candidates against him, as well as against Lincoln.
During the Convention, many agreed that slavery was wrong, but hesitated to push through a ban against it, because it wouldn't pass. On the other hand, they also didn't want to write a permanent injustice into what they hoped would become the Constitution. Instead, they tried to limit slavery where they could. Many members of the Constitutional Convention voted for the Northwest Ordinance, which banned slavery from the Old Northwest.
That was the precedent that Chief Justice Taney overrulled with Dred Scott. The correction for that error was the amendment that the Republicans supported in their 1860 platform.
Washington led the federal troops (consisting of the militia from other States) into Pennsylvania at the request of the Governor, Thomas Miffin.
http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary/prezspeeches/washington/gw_1794_1119.html
George Washington Speeches "Sixth Annual Message to Congress" (November 19, 1794)
Quotas had been assigned to the states of New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia; the governor of Pennsylvania having declared on this occasion, an opinion which justified a requisition to the other states
(snip)
Thirty days from the commencement of this session, being the legal limitation of the employment of the militia, Congress cannot be too early occupied with this subject.
http://www.greencastlemuseum.org/Governors/constitutional.htm
Mifflin set two early Federal-state relations precedents
. First, Western Pennsylvania rebelled against the Federal excise tax on whiskey in 1794. Never having fully trusted George Washington, Mifflin refused, when asked by President Washington to call out the Pennsylvania militia to enforce this Federal law. Mifflin asserted that a United States president had no authority to order a state governor to use state militia for any purpose during peacetime and in the absence of any local request for assistance. Mifflin's point was established, setting a precedent that is still honored.
The second conflict occurred when under a Pennsylvania law of 1794, Mifflin ordered state militia sent to Presqu'isle to protect the surveyors of the Erie Triangle from Indian attacks. President Washington was afraid that the appearance of state troops in this region would provoke the Senecas to join the war already underway between the western Indians and the Federal troops. Mifflin challenged Washington's request on the grounds that the president could not "suspend the operation of a positive law of Pennsylvania" that conformed to all Federal statutes. Although the 1794 law that was deemed objectionable was eventually repealed by the Pennsylvania Legislature, Mifflin refused to acknowledge that a United States president could suspend the operation of a state law which might run against national policy.
***
Jackson also made arrangement to invade South Carolina, in response to their ordinance of Nullification.
As he never did, your statement is of no consequence.
***
Jefferson enforced an embargo of US bottoms on the high seas.
As the ports are under federal control , he was within his authority.
In retrospect, it didn’t appear to have been a smart more:
http://www.americanpresident.org/history/thomasjefferson/biography/printable.html
Jefferson banned all British ships from U.S. ports, ordered state governors to prepare to call up 100,000 militiamen, and suspended trade with all of Europe. He reasoned that U.S. farm products were crucial to France and England and that a complete embargo would bring them to respect U.S. neutrality. By spring 1808, however, the Embargo Act that was passed by Congress in December 1807 had devastated the American economy. American exports plummeted from $108 million to $22 million. Economic desperation settled upon the mercantile Northeast. Finally, Jefferson backed off in the last months of his administration, and Congress replaced the Embargo Act with the Non-Intercourse Act, which banned trade with England and France but allowed it with all other countries
***
Lincoln and Grant acted under that precedent.
ROFLMAO!
1) Miffin established A State didn’t have to get permission to handle anything within its borders and had to formally request assistance from other States through the federal government.
2)Jackson was full of sound and fury, signifying nothing
and
3)Jefferson stayed within federal jurisdiction.
So I ask again...WHAT ‘precedent’?
***
So, you have attacked the Presidents on the 1 dollar bill, the 5 dollar bill, the 20 dollar bill and the 50 dollar bill.
I have ‘attacked’ no one. Please keep your slanderous remarks to yourself.
***
The Southern states had control over their state laws, until they rebelled.
States do not have the capacity to ‘rebel’. People ‘rebel’.
Again, Miffin had already set the precedent of a state’s right to conduct its own business unmolested.
Unless requested by the State ITSELF, the federal government had no business entering its territory.
***
That was why, in response to the Taney written "Dred Scott Decision", the Republicans sought to limit slavery to the states where it existed. Legally, by constitutional amendment.
I have asked you repeatedly to show me WHERE the federal government gets the authority to tell the People what type of property they may or may not own. You have YET to do so.
***
That was the precedent that Chief Justice Taney overrulled with Dred Scott.
Sigh I really do wish people would READ these decisions instead of taking someone else’s word for it. The decision of Dred Scott didn’t ‘overrule’ anything-
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Scott/
Chief Justice Taney’s conclusion;
Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution; and that the Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it. Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Taney said neither the State NOR the federal court had the ability to decide this case because Dred Scott could not, by law, be a ‘citizen’ because of his race, whether he was free or not.
No citizenship equals no *legal standing* in a court of civil or statutory law.