Replies

It was the South, after all, which forced the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. It was a southern-laced supreme court which tried to extend slavery into the North by declaring that laws restricting slavery were unconstitutional.

It was Chief Justice Roger Taney, reading aloud from Article IV of the Constitution. The Missouri Compromise was a good attempt at agreement, but it was unconstitutional -- like Nullification.

Did you like the Nullification idea as much as the Missouri Compromise? It was an attempt to find a compromise, too.

But I suppose Southerners shouldn't have been on the Supreme Court in the first place, so that the Court could interpret the Constitution correctly, without their polluting input. Is that it?

It was Chief Justice Roger Taney, reading aloud from Article IV of the Constitution. The Missouri Compromise was a good attempt at agreement, but it was unconstitutional -- like Nullification.

Sorry, but Taney's decision flew in the face of tradition and jurisprudence. The decision basically said that the U.S. government couldn't make decisions about slavery in U.S. territories. The thing is that the U.S. had been making such decisions since the founding of the Republic with no problems (see Northwest territories, Mississippi and Louisiana territories for example). At least 21 of the 39 founding fathers felt such decisions could be made. Of the founding fathers only a handful (I think 4, but am not totally sure) could be construed as having opinions contrary to the majority. Given this, it appears that Taney and his cohorts were guilty of a little judicial activism.

Did you like the Nullification idea as much as the Missouri Compromise? It was an attempt to find a compromise, too.

Madison, the father of the constitution, told Calhoun that his ideas on nullification were a bunch of crock. So who you gonna believe - Madison or Calhoun?

But I suppose Southerners shouldn't have been on the Supreme Court in the first place, so that the Court could interpret the Constitution correctly, without their polluting input. Is that it?

Who cares who serves on the Supreme Court as long as they don't do their own version of "nullification?"

Originally, the court agreed to just rule on the narrow issue concerning Dred Scotts' freedom. Due to the fact that the opposing faction on the court wrote not only about Dred Scott, but also addressed the more broad issues as well, the court decided to address everything as well. The court didn't have the guts to publish its decision until after the election of Buchanan. If southern leaders (including Buchanan) didn't know about the supreme's decision beforehand, there was an amazing prescience concerning the decision on behalf of some of them. The fact that the decision flew in the face of tradition and raised the spectre of forcing non-slave states to allow slavery inside their borders caused a bit of anxiety amongst the northern states.