[OttawaFreeper]

I have a book about historical fiascoes and the Dred Scott decision is among the ones the authors discuss. It is interesting to learn that it was the abolitionists who pushed for Scott’s freedom and they likely overreached in that cause and that helped to push Justice Taney into ruling Henry Clay’s Compromise of 1850 unconstitutional and that of course further pushed the country towards civil war.

[lepton]

It is interesting to learn that it was the abolitionists who pushed for Scott’s freedom and they likely overreached in that cause

---

That case was a mess up one side and down the other. From Scott losing one round of the case because he had not proven that he was actually enslaved by Irene Emerson, due to the testimony of a husband being dismissed as hearsay because his wife was the one that directly leased Scotts services; to there being no record of Sanford ever actually owning the Scotts.

[DoodleDawg]

It is interesting to learn that it was the abolitionists who pushed for Scott’s freedom and they likely overreached in that cause and that helped to push Justice Taney into ruling Henry Clay’s Compromise of 1850 unconstitutional and that of course further pushed the country towards civil war.

Probably not. Taney's belief that blacks were not and could never be citizens predated his appointment to the Supreme Court. Scott v. Sandford just gave him his excuse to put it into action.

[foreverfree]

ey likely overreached in that cause and that helped to push Justice Taney into ruling Henry Clay’s Compromise of 1850 unconstitutional

I thought it was the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (repealed by 1857) that the Taney Court struck down in Dred Scott.

ff