Posted on 07/11/2015 5:44:41 AM PDT by NOBO2012
Dred Scott was pretty obviously an attempt to use the power of the judiciary to impose a “solution” to a problem. That solution was opposed by a considerable majority of Americans, but its proponents immediately began to push the idea that anybody who refused to accept it as settled law was unAmerican.
The decision needed only to address the question at hand, was Scott free or not, but Taney chose to expand it and make sweeping pronouncements that arguably did not have force of law.
Most of the parts generally quoted, incluFding by you, are obiter dicta, giving the judges’ opinions but not, probably, providing a precedent.
It overruled precedents back to the Missouri Compromise, and arguably all the way back to the NW Ordinances, which predated the Constitution itself.
It misstated multiple facts and the law. For which I refer you to the dissents.
There is pretty good evidence that Buchanan, just coming into office, was given a heads-up on what the decision would be, and that quite possibly he and Taney and others got together and conspired to come up with a political rather than a legal decision.
The basis of the opinion could be used just about as well to decide that the Constitution prevented a state from prohibiting slavery within its boundaries. In fact, there is some evidence Taney was planning to do exactly that via a NY case making its way thru the courts.
It, combined with the Nebraska Act, destroyed the Whig Party and brought A. Lincoln and others back into politics to oppose it. It created the Republican Party and led directly to civil war.
Is that enough to start with why I think it was a horrible decision? :)
Let's take things one at a time.
You say the Dred Scott decision destroyed the Whig Party and brought A. Lincoln back into politics. Why is that a bad thing.
The country had limped along for decades with slavery as a less than critical issue. Most members of both parties did what they could to keep it tamped down.
But in the late 1840s and into the 1850s that became impossible.
The Dred Scott decision was one of several factors that polarized the nation. Douglas and others tried to come up with compromises, but the extremists on both sides weren’t standing for it.
The 1850s are one of the very most interesting periods in US history. The second party system fell apart, with several competing parties, of which the Democrats and Republicans were the survivors. Unfortunately for the peace of the nation, these two parties were essentially organized around pro and anti slavery positions.
If polarizing the nation and a resulting civil war is not a bad thing, then I guess neither was the Dred Scott decision.
Of course, the logic of the situation means polarization and probably war was coming anyway. Dred Scott, Nebraska, Bleeding Kansas, etc. precipitated things more than causing them.
One of the most interesting aspects of the 1850s is that both sides were absolutely, positively convinced they were defending themselves against the aggressive other side.
I challenged you on this first because, knowing that you revere Lincoln, I couldn't image how you were going to make this weak point strong. Yes, my purpose was to wrong-foot you but it was done as non-malicious mischief.
Other things you put forward to support your contention that Dred Scott was the “worst single decision” leaves me shaking my head.
You say:”There is PRETTY GOOD evidence that Buchanan, just coming into office, was given a heads-up on what the decision would be, and that QUITE POSSIBLY he and Taney and others got together and CONSPIRED to come up with a political rather than a legal decision.” The emphasis added is mine.
I know you are repeating what others have said to discredit Taney but it is called shooting the messenger. And allegations prefaced with the words “quite possibly” are USUALLY PRETTY THIN soup.
About the majority opinion you wrote: “It misstated multiple facts and the law.” That is a legitimate view. Lots of people then and now feel that way. But it is debatable. At one time 7 out of 9 people felt the Taney ruling was right.
I guess I was a little surprised you could not cite a single thing Taney got wrong. Instead you refer me to the dissents. Fair enough.
There is no shame in not having read the Dred Scott decision. As I said elsewhere, I have not (only summaries) - and I can't remember ever meeting anyone who said they had.
I enjoy discussing these things with you. Let's continue.
Not trying to dodge the question of what facts the decision got wrong, merely recognizing that the dissents did a much better job of detailing them than I could, besides being contemporary and thus avoiding the claim of speaking from hindsight.
Here are the two dissents:
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1826-1850/dred-scott-case/justice-mclean-dissenting.php
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1826-1850/dred-scott-case/justice-curtis-dissenting.php
Unusually, every single justice issued a separate concurring or dissenting opinion.
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1826-1850/dred-scott-case/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.