Not quite.
Breckenridge was a Kentuckian and Kentucky never declared secession.
What we might call "rump Kentuckians" did declare secession and were admitted as the Confederacy's 13th & last star, in the center: 
Posted on 10/20/2018 7:40:49 PM PDT by iowamark
As a work of presidential prose, James Buchanan’s inaugural address on March 4, 1857, is widely considered one of the most forgettable ever given by an American leader. As The New York Times put it dryly at the time: “Little if any impression has been made by the inaugural.” Still, it would not take long for Buchanan’s unimpressive inauguration to become one of the most significant in history. For one thing, it was the first to be photographed. It was also the first inaugural given after the creation of the Republican Party, the last before secession and ultimately the last one that a Democrat would give for almost 30 years.
Buchanan’s oath of office was also administered by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney. Yes, that Justice Taney, the one who just two days later would hand down the Supreme Court’s landmark Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, in which the court held that Congress had no power to deprive slaveholders in U.S. territories of their property — because, as Taney put it, Blacks were “so far inferior that they had no rights which the White man was bound to respect.”
In his address, Buchanan anticipated that forthcoming decision, opining that the question of slavery in U.S. territories was “happily, a matter of but little practical importance” and saying he would “cheerfully submit” to the Supreme Court resolving it “speedily and finally.” But, in truth, Buchanan had not submitted to anything. Far from being the cheerful and passive chief executive deferring to judicial authority, Buchanan had for weeks been busy behind the scenes orchestrating the result in Dred Scott, lobbying for what is arguably the worst decision in U.S. Supreme Court history. Buchanan’s actions serve as a stark reminder of what can go wrong when a president meddles in the business of the separate, and ostensibly, apolitical judicial branch.
It’s hard to exaggerate the impact that the Dred Scott decision had on American history. The decision, in which a 7-2 majority of the court declared the Missouri Compromise (under which Congress allowed one slave state to be admitted to the Union alongside one free state) unconstitutional, helped put the country on the path to civil war. The court’s ruling had been postponed until after the inauguration — after pressure from Buchanan. And it turns out, the president-elect had been lobbying the court for much more than that. A long-serving diplomat, Buchanan hoped he could alleviate the tension over the expansion of slavery by convincing the American people to let the Supreme Court have the last word on the subject. But Buchanan knew that if the decision (from a court composed of five Southerners and four Northerners) came down along party lines, or was too narrow in scope, it would be far less impactful.
So Buchanan, who had close personal ties with many on the court — including the chief justice and Justice Robert Cooper Grier of Pennsylvania, both alumni of Dickinson College like the president-elect — set about twisting some judicial arms in the run-up to his inauguration. Thanks to Buchanan’s efforts, Taney, Grier and five other justices threw their weight behind a decision that would not only nullify the Missouri Compromise (only the second Supreme Court decision to invalidate an act of Congress) but also help legitimize the institution of slavery. In fact, right before Taney administered Buchanan’s oath of office at the inauguration, the two men briefly conversed on the Capitol stairs, according to witnesses, and it is believed that Buchanan updated his speech to reflect Taney’s confirmation that the court would issue a broader holding in Dred Scott in a matter of days.
Such extra-constitutional influence on the court by a president (or president-elect) was just as inappropriate in Buchanan’s day as it would be in ours. But the diplomat in Buchanan pressed forward anyway, treating the North and South almost as if they were separate countries whose interests needed to be resolved once and for all by an international tribunal. In the end, however, Buchanan’s diplomacy would prove deeply misguided. “He foolishly believed the Supreme Court could do what Congress and the presidency had not,” says Michael L. Carrafiello, a history professor at Miami University: “Provide a final solution to the slavery question.”
Far from imposing a final solution, Dred Scott, says Carrafiello, was the beginning of the end of the Union, pulling the rug out from under those hoping to find a “middle way,” emboldening Southern slaveholders and forcing abolitionists to redouble their efforts. Before long, war would become inevitable, and, as Carrafiello puts it, “Buchanan bears a large part of the blame because of his blunder in relying on the court.”
Buchanan was almost certainly a homosexual too....
We can throw Kelo v. New London in there, as well.
Most of the Founding Fathers, including Washington, Jefferson, Madison, slave owners, looked forward to the end of slavery. See the Wallbuilders on The Founding Fathers and Slavery.
To say that the Union Civil War effort was unconstitutional is obviously incorrect. One of the purposes of the Constitution is "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
I would have thought it would have been Nixon (Roe v. Wade decision).
Nice smear by the article author tying Dred Scott to Trump obliquely.
I don’t know that Nixon favored Roe v. Wade, or even knew in advance that it was coming.
ML/NJ
Well, at least he was consistent!
The Dred Scott decision was not necessary to legitimize slavery.
The United States Constitution did that upon adoption. The U.S. Constitution enshrined slavery.
And it was the historical slave states that voted to make it so. Those slave states being: New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Maryland.
Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia were also slave states. Never forget to cast 4/13ths responsibility in that direction.
Wrongly, it should be added. Slavery was written into the U.S. Constitution. Of the original 13 states, 13 of them were slave states so it is no surprise slavery provisions were included in the constitution.
Abortion-on-demand is not found - or implied to be a federally protected right - in the constitution. Arguably the fifth amendment provides protection to the unborn person though I doubt the founders considered abortion regulation to be a federal government enumerated power.
Not quite.
Breckenridge was a Kentuckian and Kentucky never declared secession.
What we might call "rump Kentuckians" did declare secession and were admitted as the Confederacy's 13th & last star, in the center:
Nooooooo, Crazy Roger's "logic" was complete nonsense, and you should be ashamed for suggesting otherwise, FRiend.
The fact is you cannot find a single quote from any Founder which sounds like the "logic" of Crazy Rober's Dred Scott ruling.
That's because our Founders -- even slaveholders like Washington, Jefferson & Madison -- all considered slavery a moral wrong which should be, eventually, abolished.
They all believed that Congress had full authority to abolish slavery in US territories, and had no problems with some states treating freed-slaves as full voting citizens.
So where in hades does this notion come from that Crazy Roger was anything other than stark raving mad??
Democrats but buddies, Taney & Buchanan:
“So where in hades does this notion come from that Crazy Roger was anything other than stark raving mad??”
The other six justices that voted in the majority.
"Enshrined" is your word, not our Founders, FRiend.
In fact, our Founders' attitude toward slavery was very different from "enshrined".
They all believed -- even Southern slaveholders like Washington, Jefferson & Madison -- that slavery was a moral wrong which should be abolished, eventually.
They also believed Congress had full authority to abolish slavery in US territories, an authority which Crazy Roger Taney singlehandedly abolished in his Dred Scott Ruling.
As you well know, Cracy Roger's ruling P.O.'d a lot of Northerners, including this one:
"To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation."
A.L. "House Divided" June 16, 1858
There were nine Supreme Court justices. No one justice “singlehandedly” makes a major ruling on behalf of the court. (Maybe one justice does, at times, serve as gatekeeper or issues a temporary injunction).
I'm a little surprised you did not know this.
jeffersondem: "Wrongly, it should be added.
Slavery was written into the U.S. Constitution.
Of the original 13 states, 13 of them were slave states so it is no surprise slavery provisions were included in the constitution."
That's wrong, it should be added.
In fact, by the time of the 1787 Constitution Convention abolition was law in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Abolition was also dictated by Congress in 1787 in what were then called the "Northwest Territories" -- Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois & Wisconsin.
Founders like President Jefferson submitted plans for gradual compensated abolition and recolonization, and Congress under President Madison (Virginia slave-holder) voted money to support recolonization.
So when Crazy Roger Taney ruled that Congress had no authority to outlaw slavery in US Territories he was, well... blowing smoke up the Constitution's posterior.
“To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation.”
If that was Lincoln’s announced intention, maybe he really did go to war to overthrow the pro-slavery constitution of the United States.
All seven justices voting for Crazy Roger's Dred Scott ruling were Democrats, four of them Southern, two more Pennsylvanians but buddies of President Buchanan.
The two dissenters were NJ & Mass. Republicans.
They all believed that Congress had full authority to abolish slavery in US territories, and had no problems with some states treating freed-slaves as full voting citizens.
Thanks for your PC reply.
Taney (pronounce Tawney, if you care) wasn't making decisions upon what he believed some of the Framers considered morally wrong. He was, as he was supposed to do, making decisions upon what all the Framers agreed to and WROTE DOWN in the Constitution. Among the things WRITTEN DOWN was this in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3:
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.It doesn't really matter what they believed. There may be some ground for arguing that Congress could outlaw slavery in the territories, though arguing that this was a "needful rule," might be considered a stretch. Britannica says:
The Constitution contained no direct allusion to slavery in the territories; the new states and territories clauses did not refer to it, although the fugitive slave clause permitted recapture of fugitives only from the states, not the territories. Consequently, when Missouri sought admission as a slave state in 1819, Congress had no textual guidance, and for the first time it had to extrapolate from what it could determine of the Framers' intent concerning the territories.Actually, Britannica is wrong. Congress didn't have to extrapolate. It had to amend, or do nothing. Taney understood. You, apparently do not.
ML/NJ
I note your weasel-word "maybe", necessary no doubt because most Lost Causers deny the Civil War was "all about" slavery.
Some claim it was "all about" money, others say that "Ape" Lincoln had... well, you know... "manhood issues", sort of like our current President wanting to build a "big beautiful wall".
So you certainly need a "maybe" there, if only to keep other Lost Causers off your case.
But the historical fact is that Lincoln did not in this speech, or anywhere else, ever propose to "start war" to abolish slavery.
In time he did use the Civil War for this purpose, in his words:
Thanks for your insane reply, most people try to hide that from public view, nice to see you're not afraid to show the world how crazy you & Roger both are/were.
ml/nj: "Taney (pronounce Tawney, if you care) wasn't making decisions upon what he believed some of the Framers considered morally wrong.
He was, as he was supposed to do, making decisions upon what all the Framers agreed to and WROTE DOWN in the Constitution."
And so the Democrat insanity begins: redefining words to mean what they wish them to have meant.
In fact, those words meant exactly what Founders thought they meant, not what you or Crazy Roger suppose they might have meant.
And no Founder ever expressed the kinds of opinions Crazy Roger enshrined in Dred Scott.
The fact is the 1787 Northwest Ordnance was not a Constitutional issue, nobody claimed then the Constitution prevented Congress from abolishing slavery there.
That makes Crazy Roger's claims otherwise, by definition, pure insanity, meaning, anti-logical.
ml/nj: " Among the things WRITTEN DOWN was this in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3:"
Referring clearly to fugitive slaves, and nobody for the next 70 years fantasized it referred to legal permanent residents, or that Congress had no authority over territories, until Crazy Roger legislated those things from the Supreme Court's bench.
ml/nj: "It doesn't really matter what they [Founders] believed"
Spoken like a true Democrat.
Of course it matters, first & foremost, what Founders believed their words meant or implied.
In this particular case, there's no evidence -- none, zero, nada evidence -- suggesting Founders themselves intended anything other than fugitives from justice, including slaves.
And that did not include Dred Scott, the man.
ml/nj: "Congress didn't have to extrapolate.
It had to amend, or do nothing.
Taney understood.
You, apparently do not."
Neither Taney nor you had any authority to overthrow Founders' Original Intent in their Constitution.
Crazy Roger's excuse is simple insanity.
What's yours?
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.