[GOPcapitalist]

Taney had a closer eye to the events of the civil war than any other justice. He not only stated the suspension was unconstitutional but actually ruled on it in a standing case before his court.

But in case you engage in your typical ad hominems against Taney's person, a second justice from the north also had an eyewitness view to the civil war. Benjamin Curtis, the famed dissenter on Dred Scott, wrote a legal textbook on the presidency in 1862 in which he too found Lincoln's actions unconstitutional even in the scenario where they happened.

[WhiskeyPapa]

But in case you engage in your typical ad hominems against Taney's person, a second justice from the north also had an eyewitness view to the civil war. Benjamin Curtis, the famed dissenter on Dred Scott, wrote a legal textbook on the presidency in 1862 in which he too found Lincoln's actions unconstitutional even in the scenario where they happened.

Lincoln ignored Taney because he could. Had the whole Court supported Taney's position in Merrymanit would have changed things. But Taney had no chance of getting the majority to go along with his interpretation.

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote a book on this very subject. What it really comes down to is whether we accept his interpretation or yours.

Walt

[pnz1]

I read somewhere that there were two Emancipation Proclamations. The first abolished slavery in the Southern states, but allowed slavery in the states that supported the Union. Has anyone else read this?