Replies

The article above says: In March 1857, more than 10 years after he filed his lawsuit, the Supreme Court ruled on his case. The wide-reaching 7-2 decision denied citizenship to all black people and declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, allowing slavery in all states.

Then you offer up: "The Corwin Amendment was intended to be a moderate alternative to the Crittenden proposal and won support precisely because it didn't overturn state laws forbidding slavery and established federal laws concerning slavery in the territories."

Now, who is the blithering idiot?

Your usual tactic of setting up a straw man conclusion, putting out an all points bulletin to your buddies, accusing someone of drawing a conclusion that you concoct, and then feigning extreme surprise and condemnation, and yes, even personal abuse to try to make a point.

Is that what I do? Thanks for clearing that up.

Now, who is the blithering idiot?

Not me. Why do you ask?

Roger Taney was the driving force behind the Dred Scott decision. He wrote the "majority opinion" but from what I gather, each judge wrote his own opinion -- a sign that Taney didn't speak for everyone on the court.

Taney was over eighty in 1860, and he couldn't last forever on all the legal points involved. A Republican President would soon enough have the chance to appoint a Republican Chief Justice. As it was most of the court had been replaced due to deaths and resignations after 16 if not 8 years. There was the possibility to create new seats on the court and accelerate the change (which in fact Congress did do in 1863 and 1869).

New Justices wouldn't have been bound to Taney's decision, which was indeed quite radical (apparently, it was only the second time in history that the high court had set aside an act of Congress). So it just isn't true that the Corwin Amendment would have left Dred Scott -- a bad, pro-slavery decision -- permanently in effect.

As it was, it was going to be awfully difficult to enforce Dred Scott v. Sanford when something like half the country disagreed with it, but it wouldn't remain on the books forever. Then as now, Democrats had cause to fear that Republicans would appoint good judges to replace their bad ones.