Posted on 05/01/2024 4:07:52 PM PDT by TexasKamaAina
The Declaration of Secession was the result of a convention of the Mississippi Legislature in January of 1861. The convention adopted a formal Ordinance of Secession written by former Congressman Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar. While the ordinance served an official purpose, the declaration laid out the grievances Mississippi’s ruling class held against the federal government under the leadership of President-elect Abraham Lincoln...The convention really couldn’t be any more straightforward:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--the greatest material interest in the world.
(Excerpt) Read more at mississippitoday.org ...
There have been scalawags and carpetbaggers for as long as anyone can remember.
Your Republican stalwarts: Gov. Jeb Bush; Gov. Larry Hogan; Gov. Asa Hutchinson; Gov. Nikki Haley; Senator Bill Cassidy; Senator Bob Corker; Representative Joe Scarborough; NRC Chair Michael Steele . . .
Naw...
I meant that the whole question of unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure, was removed from any further discussion on and around April 9, 1865, Appomattox Court House, VA.:
” . . . unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession . . .”
Sorry, don’t remember that phrase in the DOI or U.S. Constitution.
It sounds like something you made up; or maybe the fulminations of A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant . . .
jeffersondem: "It was addressed in the sense it was enshrined in the United States Constitution."
Jeffersondem, your favorite term "enshrined" is too highfalutin a word, when "buried", "entombed" or "embalmed" would be better descriptions, because:
Montgomery, Alabama, February 1861:
"Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.[13]"Now, to a normal person reading this, it seems pretty clear that the Confederate constitution outlaws abolishing slavery, but our pro-Confederates here respond with two arguments:
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.[2][3]"
Northern Doughfaced Democrat Pres. Buchanan,
signed Corwin Amendment after unanimous Democrat votes for it.
However, we should notice the historical timeline here:
So it appears to me that the Confederate constitution came first and Corwin was simply hoping to match what Confederates were already guaranteeing.
Corwin was ratified by just two of five Union slave states and three of 18 Union free states -- nowhere near the 3/4 required.
In 1864 Ohio rescinded its ratification and Maryland voted to abolish slavery on its own.
"Article IV Section 2(1) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.[31]"
Crazy Roger Taney's insane 1857 misinterpretations
of our Founders' Original Intentions:
To which our pro-Confederates respond: that's just what the SCOTUS 1857 Dred Scot ruling provided.
However, the fact is that no Founder in 1787 would have interpreted their new US Constitution the way Crazy Roger Taney did in 1857.
The CSA constitution says, regarding territories:
"Article IV Section 3(3) -- In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.[32]"Again, this was Crazy Roger's ruling in Dred Scott, but it had nothing to do with our Founders' original intentions.
The three-fifths clauses of both constitutions are almost identical, except for Confederates' use of the words, "three-fifths of all slaves".
The 1861 Constitution flat out banned the slave trade. The 1787 Constitution allowed for it to continue for 20 more years.
Unlike the 1861 Confederate constitution, the US 1787 Constitution does not prohibit outlawing slavery. As the CSA constitution said: "Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.[13]" Now, to a normal person reading this, it seems pretty clear that the Confederate constitution outlaws abolishing slavery, but our pro-Confederates here respond with two arguments: This provision only prohibits the Confederate Federal government from abolishing slavery, it does not prohibit states from abolishing slavery. States, our pro-Confederates claim, were still free to abolish slavery if they wished. Corwin, Corwin, Corwin, Corwin, Corwin! The CSA constitution, they claim, only says exactly what Corwin said: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.[2][3]" Northern Doughfaced Democrat Pres. Buchanan, signed Corwin Amendment after unanimous Democrat votes for it. However, we should notice the historical timeline here: February 7, 1861 -- the Confederate Secession Convention in Montgomery, Alabama, began work on their new Confederate constitution. It was completed on March 11, 1861. February 28, 1861 -- Ohio Republican Congressman Corwin submitted his proposed amendment. It barely passed with 100% Democrat support and majority Republican opposition and was signed by Democrat Pres. Buchanan on March 4. So it appears to me that the Confederate constitution came first and Corwin was simply hoping to match what Confederates were already guaranteeing. Corwin was ratified by just two of five Union slave states and three of 18 Union free states -- nowhere near the 3/4 required. In 1864 Ohio rescinded its ratification and Maryland voted to abolish slavery on its own.
The Corwin Amendment which was introduced in each house of Congress by a Republican was - as Doris Kearns-Goodwin goes to great trouble to lay out - orchestrated by incoming Republican Abe Lincoln. Kentucky, Ohio, Rhode Island, Maryland and Lincoln's Illinois ratified it. As NYs Seward said, NY would have ratified it too had the original 7 seceding states agreed to it. They did not. Ohio rescinding its approval long after the Southern states had rejected it was a bit like closing the barn door after all the horses had bolted. ie a useless and meaningless gesture.
Unlike the 1861 CSA constitution, the 1787 USA Constitution makes no guarantees of a "right of sojourn" with slaves. In contrast, the CSA constitution says: "Article IV Section 2(1) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.[31]" Crazy Roger Taney's insane 1857 misinterpretations of our Founders' Original Intentions: To which our pro-Confederates respond: that's just what the SCOTUS 1857 Dred Scot ruling provided. However, the fact is that no Founder in 1787 would have interpreted their new US Constitution the way Crazy Roger Taney did in 1857.
How do you know that? You like to hurl epithets at Chief Justice Taney as if he alone were responsible but the fact is a majority of the SCOTUS agreed with him and ruled that way. The 1861 Confederate Constitution was no different from what the law was in the US prior to 1861.
Unlike the 1861 CSA constitution, the 1787 US Constitution did not forbid Congress from outlawing slavery in US territories. Indeed, the US Congress had outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territories in 1787, so that was clearly intended by our Founders. The CSA constitution says, regarding territories: "Article IV Section 3(3) -- In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.[32]" Again, this was Crazy Roger's ruling in Dred Scott, but it had nothing to do with our Founders' original intentions.
Again, this was the same as in the US prior to 1861 and again, Chief Justice Taney represented the majority opinion of the US Supreme Court. The Confederate Constitution other than mentioning the word "slavery" explicitly didn't protect it any more than or provide additional rights to slaveowners that they did not have in the US at the time.
The three-fifths clauses of both constitutions are almost identical, except for Confederates' use of the words, "three-fifths of all slaves".
Yes the Confederate Constitution was more honest in explicitly using the word slave while the US Constitution didn't specifically use that word even while doing exactly the same thing.
The fugitive slave clauses of both constitutions are identical, because for once Confederates decided to use our Southern Founders' euphemistic language instead of their own more blunt words regarding fugitive slaves.,/p>
In General the Confederate Constitution simply adopted large swathes of the US Constitution in the same way that the US Constitution incorporated large swathes of the Articles of Confederation. In each instance, the drafters of both only made changes in areas they felt needed reform.
Bottom line: your favorite word, "enshrined", is indeed the proper word for slavery in the 1861 CSA constitution, but not in the 1787 US Constitution. Instead, our Founders in 1787 hoped to "bury", "entomb" and/or "embalm" slavery, as best they could at that time. Sadly, for them and the USA, slavery was not yet dead in 1787.
Bottom line the protections of slavery and the rights of slaveowners were the same in the Confederate Constitution as they had been under the US Constitution. The only difference was that the Confederate Constitution is more honest in explicitly saying the word slavery.
The 1861 Confederate constitution specified an exception which is not present in the 1787 US Constitution.
FLT-bird: "The Corwin Amendment which was introduced in each house of Congress by a Republican was - as Doris Kearns-Goodwin goes to great trouble to lay out - orchestrated by incoming Republican Abe Lincoln.
Kentucky, Ohio, Rhode Island, Maryland and Lincoln's Illinois ratified it."
Corwin helped keep Border Slave States in the Union:
Your word "orchestrated" can apply to NY Sen. Seward, but not to Lincoln.
And the fact remains, all your handwaving notwithstanding, that Corwin was supported by 100% of Democrats, while opposed by a majority of Republicans, and was even signed by Democrat Pres. Buchanan.
Further, Corwin simply matched language already found in the new Confederate constitution, and so could have no effect whatever on any already seceded states.
It did have a strong effect on keeping Border Slave States in the Union.
FLT-bird: "As NYs Seward said, NY would have ratified it too had the original 7 seceding states agreed to it.
They did not."
What is your source for this claim about Sen. Seward?
FLT-bird on SCOTUS' Dred Scott: "How do you know that? "
I know that no Founder ever agreed with Crazy Roger Taney's insane Dred Scott rulings because there are no quotes from any of them which remotely resemble Crazy Roger's alleged "logic".
FLT-bird: "You like to hurl epithets at Chief Justice Taney as if he alone were responsible but the fact is a majority of the SCOTUS agreed with him and ruled that way."
100% of those who concurred in Crazy Roger's Dred Scott insane rulings were Democrats and of those seven, five were Southern Democrats while the other two were Northern Doughface Democrats.
The two justices who dissented from Crazy Roger were both Republicans -- Curtis from Massachusetts and McLean from Ohio.
FLT-bird: "The 1861 Confederate Constitution was no different from what the law was in the US prior to 1861."
Nooooo... but obviously, the Southern slavocracy was deliriously happy with Crazy Roger's insane opinions, and so repeated them in their new 1861 Confederate constitution.
In the North, the reaction was quite different:
"The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott was 'greeted with unmitigated wrath from every segment of the United States except the slave holding states.'[40]Perhaps the most important judgment on Crazy Roger's opinions came from lawyer out of Springfield, Illinois:
The American political historian Robert G. McCloskey described:The tempest of malediction that burst over the judges seems to have stunned them; far from extinguishing the slavery controversy, they had fanned its flames and had, moreover, deeply endangered the security of the judicial arm of government.
No such vilification as this had been heard even in the wrathful days following the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Taney’s opinion was assailed by the Northern press as a wicked 'stump speech' and was shamefully misquoted and distorted.
'If the people obey this decision,' said one newspaper, 'they disobey God.'[45]"
"Put that and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a state to exclude slavery from its limits.FLT-bird: "The Confederate Constitution other than mentioning the word "slavery" explicitly didn't protect it any more than or provide additional rights to slaveowners that they did not have in the US at the time."And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of 'care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up', shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made.
Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States.
Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty [Democrats!!!] shall be met and overthrown.
We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free; and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.
To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation.
This is what we have to do."
A. Lincoln, June 16, 1858, "House Divided Speech"
Our FRiend, jeffersondem, loves the word "enshrined" regarding slavery in the US Constitution.
In reality, the 1861 Confederate constitution did "enshrine" several important ideas that were not even hinted at in the 1787 US Constitution, but only very recently imposed on it through the insanities of Crazy Roger and against the strong objections of Northern Republicans.
FLT-bird: "Yes the Confederate Constitution was more honest in explicitly using the word slave while the US Constitution didn't specifically use that word even while doing exactly the same thing."
With the one curious exception of the Fugitive Slave clause, in which Confederates repeated the 1787 Constitution's euphemistic language, word for word.
In fact, the 1861 Confederate constitution did "enshrine" many protections for slavery which were in no way spelled out in the 1787 US Constitution, Crazy Roger's lunacies notwithstanding.
FLT-bird: "Bottom line the protections of slavery and the rights of slaveowners were the same in the Confederate Constitution as they had been under the US Constitution.
The only difference was that the Confederate Constitution is more honest in explicitly saying the word slavery."
Sorry, but that is a lie which you can only maintain by claiming that somehow Crazy Roger's insane opinions had anything to do with our 1787 Founding Fathers' Original Intentions.
They didn't, and in your heart of hearts, I think you well know that, as do your pro-Confederate FRiends here.
1787 Constitutional Convention, Philadelphia:
A silly point. Article IV, section 2 is clearly referring to slaves. Also the authorization of Congress to ban the slave trade in 1808 uses euphemisms, but it is absolutely referring to slaves.
Article IV, simply blows your point out of the water. The US Constitution did indeed endorse slavery, both tacitly and actively.
Does it say it was a fake, ginned up drama to create a political win for the Republicans?
Yes, Dred Scott was owned by a Republican representative in Massachusetts, one of the most trouble stirring states in the history of the nation. It's those d@mn Puritans and their need to impose *THEIR* morality on everyone else.
The Dred Scott incident was fabricated just to stir up trouble.
Taney was a Democrat. He had been against slavery when young, and came to support it as he grew older. The case was promoted by Taney and others. The purpose was to put an end to the "slavery question" once and for all, by having the Supreme Court give a definitive ruling, thus saving the Union.
The effect was the opposite of what was intended.
It shows the problems of many grand conspiracies: It is nearly impossible to determine the long term effects of political actions.
After the fact, people propose theories to shoehorn the observed facts into their ideology.
The Confederacy was no more committed to slavery than the US was.
The US Constitution refused to mention slavery. The Confederate Constitution did refer to slaves. Thus it was more committed to slavery. Few honest, unbiased and thoughtful people would have denied that in 1861.
Just because the people of one state had chosen to get rid of slavery it does not necessarily follow that they would then try to force their choice on others. Most Southerners saw it as a matter for each sovereign state to decide.
"The people of one state" is a variegated group. "The people" of a Northern state would include abolitionists. Southerners had done all they could to drive abolitionists out. Clearly, admitting free states would mean admitting abolitionists. They would be fewer in some states than others, but most Southern politicians wouldn't really want any.
Barring free states from joining the Confederacy would have been bad public relations. It would have alienated foreigners and others who might sympathize with the CSA, but that didn't mean that the CSA could realistically expect to admit Northern states or that it would want them.
What the Confederacy was really committed to was respecting the sovereignty of each state.
Yet slaveowners didn't want more free states to be admitted to the union, and Missourians were filling up Kansas to make it a slave state. Why would they change now?
Slave states weren't happy about free states blocking the return of runaways. When they had the upper hand they weren't opposed to federal overreach, as in Taney's Dred Scott opinion. But you repeat it as a dogma that they were all about state sovereignty.
Lincoln worked closely with Corwin and Seward to draft it, get it passed with a supermajority in both houses of Congress and then lobby state governments to pass it.
That just isn't true. Buchanan had called for such an amendment. The House went through 57 drafts of the amendment. Early on, John Crittenden played a major role in drafting proposals that were unacceptable to Republicans, so Seward and Corwin jumped in to come up with an alternative. Lincoln submitted possible versions of an amendment. So did a lot of other people. It had to be hammered out in the House and the Senate. Corwin and Seward were there on the scene. Lincoln didn't arrive in Washington until about 10 days before his inauguration.
Seward was more experienced than Lincoln. He thought he was the better man and that in the new administration he would play the role of prime minister and head of government to Lincoln's more passive role as head of state. He wasn't going to take direction from Lincoln. Corwin was giving advice to Lincoln, rather than getting direction from him. Corwin was active in hammering out the compromise. He was an experienced parliamentarian capable of handling all of the maneuvering himself.
Lincoln played a peripheral role in getting the amendment passed. He could sweeten the pot by offering appointments to the supporters of politicians that Seward needed to vote for the amendment or abstain from voting. That apparently happened in one case. Lincoln was far from any kind of mastermind, though. Seward and Corwin were in charge. After the amendment was passed Lincoln sent letters to governors informing them that the amendment had passed Congress, but he wasn't energetically lobbying them. If you have any evidence of that, please provide it now or stop repeating that claim.
Politicians lied then just as they do today.
Yes, politicians lie. People lie. After the Civil War some of them helped give the lie that it was all about tariffs a start. Lincoln had more of a role in the origin of the Corwin Amendment than he claimed, but less of a role in its origin and promotion than modern day conspiracy theorists claim.
“I haven’t seen evidence of some deep worry on the part of Southerners from the Deep South that the states of the Upper South had “a flagging commitment to slavery”. Southerners viewed it as a matter for the people of each state to decide.”
That is the dogma. But it’s clear that militants further South viewed the weakening of slavery in the Border States as a threat and feared that it would spread.
In “The Disruption of American Democracy,” Roy Nichols describes Southern fears in the Summer and Fall of 1860.
This fear was not the fear of property loss, of slave uprising, or of the destruction of white supremacy; these might be felt by the voters, but among the leaders there was the fear of loss of power. They would lose their preferred position in Washington; that was bad enough, but it was not their greatest dread. Their very real and often overlooked fear was loss of power at home. The victory of Abraham Lincoln, one time Kentucky poor white, might have consequences little related to the much talked-of abolition. It might stir up the submerged whites to whom Helper had appealed.
If elected, Lincoln would have the federal patronage at his command. He would be appointing a postmaster in every community. Where would he find the men. Not among the aristocracy, not among the fire eaters, not among the Democrats. Might they not be men of his own humble origin? Already that idea was stirring in the minds of some of the ambitious. One Indiana Republican alone, by election day, had received six hundred applications for office from men in the South.
Worse still, Lincoln might appoint free Negroes Undoubtedly, the Republicans would endeavor to use the federal patronage to build up their party. The new postmasters would not censor the mails, would not burn abolition papers. They would preach to the poor against the rule of the rich and would stir up a class struggle to create a new order in the name of democracy. They might even be abolitionists.
This fear already had been voiced in the Senate during the last two sessions. When a North Carolina member heard of the breakup at Baltimore and reflected upon the character of the times, and “the dirty influences which in this day prompt action,” he confessed that he was not surprised. “The democratic proclivities of the age pervade our whole country — nothing can arrest our downward tendency to absolute Government — the idea of a Republic is cherished by but few. What a season for Demagogues and Charlatans!”
The fear of a shift of power to the poorer farmers and artisans was contributing to local political contests in a fashion big with danger. In several of the southern states the Democratic machines had to deal with this election under local conditions which had nothing directly to do with it. The crisis of 1860 illustrates very well a fundamental characteristic of American politics; namely, that federal issues are frequently used in state politics in an artificial and opportunistic fashion. This local use of federal issues is not always apparent and is difficult to understand if too constant focus is kept on the federal angle. Such local use was particularly marked in South Carolina during this fateful summer.
The Helper referred to is Hinton Rowan Helper, whose “appeal to the non-slaveholding whites of the South” entitled “The Impending Crisis of the South: How to Meet It” advocated that sort of class conflict. The book set off a panic among slaveowners.
I think Nichols sees things too much through the prism of class. A large number of Southerners, elite or not, feared that Republicans would build up a party in the Border States and the South that would support an eventual end to slavery and possibly to White Supremacy.
The Corwin Amendment appeased many in the Upper South, but it wasn’t enough to calm those fears in the Deep South states that had already succeeded. It was never going to bring them back into the union.
Why is that? The guy was a political activist out to stir up trouble, and he succeeded. Liberals are still doing this exact sort of thing today.
Woodpusher can give you a great deal of insight into the actual case of Dred Scott. I think he has written excellent commentary on the point, and perhaps he will do so again.
Why focus on the Massachusetts representative? He did not chose to take the case. He did not write the opinion. He did not conspire with other justices and President Pierce about the case. Pierce was a Democrat and a staunch anti-abolitionist.
The case was somewhat unusual, and Taney had to stretch a bit to take it.
Pierce was a drunk. Many consider him one of the worst American presidents.
Correct, scalawags all of ‘em! And again, it’s stems from DEMOCRATS! Always! Christ Sake that’s why I left the f’ing party years ago.
I was raised in it, my Irish grandparents and parents swore by it till their last breaths.
To my father FDR was the Second Coming.
That free spending socialist idiot shot the rent money on The New Deal, which did nothing and we got caught with our draws down at Pearl Harbor.
It seems to me you are attempting to distance the original 13 slave states from their unanimous vote to adopt the pro-slavery United States Constitution.
Brings to mind the University professor from up north who argued the U.S. Constitution does not provide a criminal defendant with the right to remain silent; only that a criminal defendant can't be “compelled . . . to be a witness against himself.”
Brother Joe, it is the same thing.
In his first inaugural address President Lincoln stated: “There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
“No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
“It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause “shall be delivered up” their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?”
President Lincoln could find slavery in the United States Constitution, something you claim you can't find.
But I guess Lincoln was not playing a little game that day.
"Sorry, don’t remember that phrase in the DOI or U.S. Constitution.
It sounds like something you made up; or maybe the fulminations of A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant . . ."
Naw...
But by leaving out the key words, "at pleasure", you've misquoted both me and our Founders' original intentions.
Those Founders' intentions can be found in many quotes, most completely spelled out by our Father of the Constitution, James Madison in his now famous letter to Nicholas Trist, with which I'm certain you are familiar.
I'm also certain you well understand that the entire Lost Cause ideology is built on a foundational claim that 1860 Fire Eating Secessionists were inheritors of our 1776 and 1787 Founders' Original Intentions.
They weren't, and one way we can know that is to realize your compulsion to misquote and leave out Founders' key distinction between disunion for a just cause, as in 1776 versus secession "at pleasure" as in 1860.
Thanks for your link, I read your review.
Clearly, a key link in the chain of our Lost Causers' "logic" is the claim that Crazy Roger's Dred Scott opinions represented a valid interpretation of our Founders' Original Intentions.
They didn't, certainly not our Northern Founders, nor have I ever seen quotes from Southern Founders which confirm that their views in any way matched Crazy Rogers' Dred Scott ruminations.
DiogenesLamp: "A silly point.
Article IV, section 2 is clearly referring to slaves.
Also the authorization of Congress to ban the slave trade in 1808 uses euphemisms, but it is absolutely referring to slaves."
Naw, my point is not at all silly, and the fact that you refuse to recognize its importance tells us something about your own thinking.
The important point here is that our Founders went to great lengths to not just avoid words like "slave", they also tried to obscure slave references under language a casual reader might well not even understand.
Why?
Especially considering that 1861 secessionists had no problems with inserting words like "slave" when that's what they meant, why didn't our Founders?
The non-trivial, non-silly reasons are as obvious as they are important -- it's because our Founders well understood that slavery was both wrong and disgraceful, and so could not be called by its real name, but instead had to be referred to indirectly and euphemistically.
To our Founders, "slavery" was a "bad word", similar to a curse-word, or pornographic, and as such must not be used in their politest of documents.
So, to our Founders, 1861 Fire Eating Secessionists' use of words like "slave" in their Montgomery constitution, would be the equivalent of full-frontal nudity exposed.
Now, try to unsee that! 😂
marktwain: "Why focus on the Massachusetts representative?
He did not chose to take the case.
He did not write the opinion.
He did not conspire with other justices and President Pierce about the case.
Pierce was a Democrat and a staunch anti-abolitionist.
"The case was somewhat unusual, and Taney had to stretch a bit to take it.
"Pierce was a drunk.
Many consider him one of the worst American presidents."
Thanks, this post bears repeating because our FRiend DiogenesLamp has peddled his Dred Scott conspiracy theory here for a long time now, and I've never before seen an effective response.
So, it turns out, there was a Dred Scott conspiracy, but it was not hatched in Massachusetts, rather by pro-slavery Southerners in Washington, DC.
They intended to end the slavery question by having SCOTUS declare abolition unconstitutional, and with Dred Scott, were just one small step away from their goal.
On Democrat Pres. Pierce, he was also a close personal friend of his Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis, a friendship which did not end in 1861.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.