[lentulusgracchus]

So, you're saying that Congress did not have the right to outlaw slavery in the territories because Chief Justice Taney and a majority of the court said so?

Congress didn't have the right to outlaw slavery, a protected property right, anywhere -- without amending the Constitution.

Taney followed the law, and the logical sequel of his opinion was that slavery was legal everywhere -- Lincoln could see that, too. You know he saw it. Everyone saw it.

Taney followed the logic of the law. Lincoln was right -- there could be no "house divided" on the subject of fundamental rights.

[Non-Sequitur]

Congress didn't have the right to outlaw slavery, a protected property right, anywhere -- without amending the Constitution.

Nonsense. Nowhere does the Constitution say that.

Taney followed the law, and the logical sequel of his opinion was that slavery was legal everywhere -- Lincoln could see that, too. You know he saw it. Everyone saw it.

Nonsense. Lincoln disagrees with the Scott v Sanford decision and said so repeatedly. What you are saying is that slavery was legal in the territories because according to Taney and a majority of the court the Constitution said it was.

Taney followed the logic of the law.

I've read the decision front to back, and I can't see the logic that you speak of. But that's just me. And my vote doesn't count. Slavery was legal in the territories because in the opinion of the Supreme Court it was legal. Thant pretty well sum up your arguement?

[capitan_refugio]

It was a principle of American law that the legislature could bar slavery from any territory, before there was a Constitution. The Consitution spifically gave to Congress the power to regulate the territories. I don't see where it gave them that power, except in the case of slavery.