[moehoward]

"How about some examples?"

Lemmon to start with. But there's more in SC's declaration of secession.

"Is there any reason to believe their fate at the hands of the Taney court would have been any different?"

An excellent point. There was absolutely none.

"Where was it noted?

American Legal History Cases and Materials 2nd ed. - (Judge Thomas W) Clerke believed that the decision was "wanton aggression" for "mere propagandanism" Clerke warned that under international law the act of New York "would be a valid cause" for war.

[0.E.O]

Lemmon to start with. But there's more in SC's declaration of secession.

Maybe you should actually read the Lemmon decision before you keep relying on it. And as for the state laws that the South Carolina declaration mentioned, every single one that was reviewed by the Supreme Court had been overturned. So again, it's was a non issue. The Constitution had been upheld by the federal government at every level.

An excellent point. There was absolutely none.

So the Constitutional rights of the slave states with respect to their property would continue to be upheld. So...what were they really rebelling over? Care to hazard a guess on that?

[0.E.O]

American Legal History Cases and Materials 2nd ed. - (Judge Thomas W) Clerke believed that the decision was "wanton aggression" for "mere propagandanism" Clerke warned that under international law the act of New York "would be a valid cause" for war.

But where did South Carolina note it as one of their causes for rebellion?