Replies

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

ml/nj: "Thanks for your PC reply."

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?

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, ..."

Seems pretty clear to me. The Constitution also empowers the government to admit new states. Imagine the dilemma of an escaped slave living in one of the territories of the U.S. and then, upon admission of that territory as a state, finding himself bundled up and shipped back to his owner.

To me it would appear that slave owners were empowered to re-capture slaves who escaped to U.S. territories and that the federal government had no power to interfere.