Infamous Dred Scott slavery case decision took place 150 years ago this week

kansascitykansan.com ^ | Thursday, March 8, 2007 | BRYAN F. Le BEAU

[DeerfieldObserver]

I doubt if it would have lasted past 1880. The United States was the only country in the entire world that had to resort to war to abolish slavery, which was becoming economically untenable.

For that I blame Abraham Lincoln's refusal to strike a compromise, and the rabid Southerners extremism in defense of the spread of slavery.

[since 1854]

Slaves could have been put to work in the mines and mills, as well as the fields, of the South.

[since 1854]

After rebels fired at a U.S. fort and took over many more without a shot, what was there for President Lincoln to compromise? Ronald Reagan would have responded the same way.

[DeerfieldObserver]

"After rebels fired at a U.S. fort and took over many more without a shot, what was there for President Lincoln to compromise? Ronald Reagan would have responded the same way."


From the time he was elected in November 1860 to April 12, 1861 is almost 6 months.

Lincoln only won the election because the Democratic Party ran two opposing candidates for President.

Lincoln was very dogmatic in refusing any attempt at compromise. The Crittenden Compromise had been accepted by both sides to avoid the Civil War, but Lincoln vetoed it, and said it was time to call the South's "bluff".

Till the very end, Lincoln thought the South was bluffing. I only wish he had had the wisdom and temperment to avoid the Civil War.

Alas, history is always written by the Victors. That is why he is considered such a great president.

[Squawk 8888]

Slavery is practically condoned in the Bible

The "slavery" described in the Bible bears no resemblance to the chattel slavery that the Arabs introduced to Europe and the Americas. In ancient Israel, a slave was either a criminal, a POW, or somebody who sold himself. Essentially, what they called a "slave" was actually someone who entered into a labour contract.

[LS]

I posted this the other day, but Charles Calomiris and I wrote a (so-far, unrefuted) article in the Journal of Economic History in which I think we proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Panic of 1857 was a direct result of the anticipated political chaos in the territories caused by Dred Scott. We showed that ONLY the east-west railroad bonds plummeted after the decision, which in turn cut the legs out from under the asset base of the main banks, which then collapsed.

Congrats, Roger Taney. You not only made a pitifully bad judicial decision, but you plunged an entire nation into depression.

[aaCharley]

Slavery was particularly protected by the US Constitution. If it had not included that language, it is doubtful that the states would have adopted it. The decision of these judges (7-2) simply follows the Constitution. Lawmakers had attempted to change it with their various "compromise" pieces of legislation. As noted, this ruling invalidated those compromises.

It would take a Constitutional Amendment to abolish slavery. That was the point of those who advocated secession. Some in Congress are changing the original intent of what was in that Constitution that we agreed to adopt.

[rbosque]

I find it hysterical that liberals who support abortion always rub the court's decision in your face. So I guess the Scott decision was right? After all, the court said so.
The libs need to be called on this more often!

[DeerfieldObserver]

The Supreme Court usurped the power that belonged to the Legislative and Executive Branches and helped start the Civil War.

A horrible Supreme Court Decision, right up there with Roe vs. Wade.

[aaCharley]

since 1854 wrote:
"After rebels fired at a U.S. fort and took over many more without a shot, what was there for President Lincoln to compromise? Ronald Reagan would have responded the same way."

---

Except that it did not occur in that way.
Once a particular state seceded, the Federal soldiers were no longer in Federal territory. For the most part, they withdrew - as they should have. Lincoln personally ordered that Sumpter not be turned over to the State. It was Lincoln's intention to create the armed conflict that resulted. The state was only trying to reclaim control of the territory and facilities that had become theirs. Since the State was no longer a part of the Union - there was no right of Union soldiers to occupy any of its territory.

[since 1854]

A state cannot secede from the United States any more than a county can secede from your state or your town can secede from your county. Rebel-controlled territory remained part of the United States.

[HardStarboard]

To paraphrase that great civil rights leader, Rodney King

"Can't we all just get over it?"

[aaCharley]

DeerfieldObserver wrote
"Lincoln was very dogmatic in refusing any attempt at compromise. The Crittenden Compromise had been accepted by both sides to avoid the Civil War, but Lincoln vetoed it, and said it was time to call the South's "bluff".

Till the very end, Lincoln thought the South was bluffing. I only wish he had had the wisdom and temperment to avoid the Civil War.

Alas, history is always written by the Victors. That is why he is considered such a great president."

---

Yes, and the Crittenden Compromise consisted of a series of Constitutional Amendment. Those passed both houses of Congress. Lincoln vetoed the legislation - so they were never offered to the States for ratification. The Amendments (generally) would have limited the areas of the country where slavery was permitted.

http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/CrittendenComp.html

[LexBaird]

From the time he was elected in November 1860 to April 12, 1861 is almost 6 months.

Abraham Lincoln's Inauguration was March 4, 1861. South Carolina declared secession on Dec. 10th, 1860. They started proceedings four days after he was legally elected in an election they participated in. They started shelling Federal property 22 days after he took office.

The Crittenden Compromise would have had the effect of permanently enshrining the right of slavery in the Constitution and freezing the status quo pre "Dred Scott". Obviously, that was untenable. Not to mention that it would have been ... problematical ... to amend the Constitution with "unchangeable" articles, which would violate Article V.

[DeerfieldObserver]

Lincoln was a genius in giving the South "enough rope to hang itself", which it promptly did.


Lincoln had no interest in avoiding war if it involved any sort of legislative compromise with the Slave Power.

[aaCharley]

since 1854 wrote:
"A state cannot secede from the United States any more than a county can secede from your state or your town can secede from your county. Rebel-controlled territory remained part of the United States."

---

You may believe that now, after Lincoln won his War Against America. However, that was not what many people believed at the time. If you dig a bit, you will find that the New York State Legislature voted upon whether to leave the Union several times before 1861. Other States considered it for many different reasons at different times.

Lincoln could not imagine how the North would survive without the tax revenue from the South. He was a mercantilist of the very worst sort.

[DeerfieldObserver]

Lincoln actually thought that God was against slavery and that he was doing God's work in eliminating it.

[aaCharley]

LexBaird wrote:

"The Crittenden Compromise would have had the effect of permanently enshrining the right of slavery in the Constitution and freezing the status quo pre "Dred Scott". Obviously, that was untenable. Not to mention that it would have been ... problematical ... to amend the Constitution with "unchangeable" articles, which would violate Article V."

---

Slavery was Enshrined in the Constitution in the original form. Theere is No Question About That Point. The Crittenden Compromise would have limited that to a smaller area of the country. And it would have achieved those limits properly - by Constitutional Amendment.

[Red Badger]

Not that many mines in the Old South, mostly in the "free" states. As for fields, the only time you need lots of labor is at harvest. Why would you need to house, clothe and feed them for the whole year to use them in just one part of the year? That situation would have readily ended when a plantation owner could see the steam engine as a harvester being much more economic to use. Technology would have ended slavery eventually, sooner or later. But then where would you be? Millions of former slaves, unskilled for the most part, unemployed and competing with poor unskilled whites for the same jobs. Exactly the same situation as when the Civil War ended, only later in time, and possibly with much worse consequences..............

[DeerfieldObserver]

"Exactly the same situation as when the Civil War ended, only later in time, and possibly with much worse consequences.............."


Tell that to all the Americans who died fighting on both sides of a needless war. Again, America was the only country that had to have a war to abolish slavery.

Thank you Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Davis.