Replies

ml/nj: "Taney gets a bad rap for Dred Scott.
It was properly decided on Constitutional grounds.
Do-gooders just didn't like the logical conclusion. "

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:

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.

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