Posted on 03/06/2018 9:17:29 AM PST by Bull Snipe
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger Tanney issues the verdict in the case Scott V. Sanford, aka the "Dred Scott Decision" The court finds that Scott cannot sue in Fedreal court for his freedom because, as a slave, he is not a citizen of the United States and therefore lacks standing to sue. That addresses the specific issue before the Court. However Tanney goes further in his decision. -Not only is Scott not a U.S. Citizen, there is no Constitutionally legal path for Scott or any slave to become a U.S. Citizen. -The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to interfere with slavery in any state where slavery is legal. -The Federal Government must enforce the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. -The Missouri Compromise is Unconstitutional.
Some consider the Dred Scott Decision to be the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court
On the other hand, Lincoln’s premise was that secession was impossible because the union was perpetual, that legally, the South never left. So why did they need to be readmitted?
They don't care. They will argue it one way when it supports what they want, and they will argue it the very opposite way when that supports what they want.
The Union/NonUnion condition of the Southern confederacy is in a state of quantum superposition, being in both conditions simultaneously, depending on how the Union apologists need to characterize whatever particular point is being discussed at the time.
That cat is both dead and alive at the same time.
See what I mean? They want to have it both ways!
Yes, no controversy at all. Don't most people willingly give up all the accumulated wealth and capital that they and their ancestors have acquired over the last "four score and seven years"?
Yes, I can see many states agreeing to give away the vast bulk of all their money in a vote such as this.
Yes, they legitimately voted to give away 80% of all their money. That makes perfect sense to everyone.
They had four years, and so far as I can tell, all they did was bitch about it.
The only person around here who thinks Lincoln revoked Article IV, Section 2 is you.
Well that's not true at all. The puppet government's put in place by the military forces occupying those lands voted in the way the puppets were told to vote.
Lincoln revoked Article IV because you say he did. Puppet governments because you say they were. Courts are biased because you say they are. I'm detecting a pattern here.
They didn't.
Both ways because you say it is?
Not really. The Fifth amendment makes it clear you cannot take them away, and Article IV, Section 2 means you have to give them back.
Between the rock of "cannot take them away" and the hard place of "must give them back" where do you see ground for an ability to prohibit slavery in the territory?
How could you stop it while remaining lawful to those two constitutional requirements?
I'm sure the rebellion was a distraction. And in the end they found a permanent solution through the 13th Amendment.
Put a cork in it, Schrödinger.
The operative word is "think." You are correct. You do not agree with me because you do not think about this. It is paradoxical to your position.
Article IV, section 2 *REQUIRES* the federal government to return slaves.
There is no bend to it.
The Due Process was the Confiscation Acts, and Article IV, Section 2 applies to fugitives. Freed slaves moving from one state to another aren't fugitives.
I do too. Anything that doesn't support what you *WANT* to believe, you claim I made it up.
No, it's the clear truth that any objective person can discern from the record.
Hardly case won since you failed to show where the Cooper Institute address carries the weight of law - ESPECIALLY - prior to the Dred Scott ruling.
We can certainly discuss the ramification of Dred Scott and what changes that they led to. But my original premise remains: The ruling in Dred Scott, as misguided as it might have been, still followed the laws enacted the legal logic of that time.
LOL! Not agreeing with your position does not indicate lack of thought so much as agreeing with your cockeyed ideas would.
Article IV, section 2 *REQUIRES* the federal government to return slaves.
After the Emancipation Proclamation they weren't slaves.
You are mistaken. I would like nothing better than to pin you down on this point, but when it suits you, you will have the Confederacy out of the Union, and when it doesn't suit you, you will have them never having left.
You play this game pretending both conditions are true at the same time, and you ignore my efforts to solicit from you a response that acknowledges your position contradicts the actual facts of the situation.
As I mentioned. If the South never left the Union, how did Lincoln get around Article IV, section 2 which requires him to return freed slaves?
It sounds like Lincoln is the one who left the union, doesn't it?
As the subsequent Chief Justice of the Supreme court noted, "secession is not rebellion."
But the people who caused all the bloodshed kept *CALLING* it rebellion, because without that fig leaf to justify their actions, they would rightly be viewed as monsters.
And in the end they found a permanent solution through the 13th Amendment.
The "13th amendment" was just another fig leaf for their dictatorial use of power. No knowledgeable and sane person would believe that those states would have ever agreed to that without guns pointed at their head.
No congressional law can circumnavigate a constitutional right. Congress cannot deprive anyone of property with a blanket law directed at a class. That does not even resemble the "due process" referred to in the fifth amendment.
It would have required a court proceeding for each and every iteration. Congress cannot do it en masse. Congress cannot even do it at all. Neither could the President do it legally.
Tanney was a nasty little man.
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.