[marktwain]

You are focused on Taney, and *NOT* focused on the Massachussetts representative that deliberately launched this entire mess

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.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "You are focused on Taney, and *NOT* focused on the Massachussetts representative that deliberately launched this entire mess"

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why focus on the Massachusetts representative? He did not chose to take the case.

He most certainly did! He could have freed Dred Scott any time he pleased, but he *CHOSE* to test the laws of Missouri.

This wasn't about the slave. This was about him stirring up a political propaganda tool. He clearly didn't give a sh*t about the slave or he would have freed him without going through all that other nonsense.

So did you learn the history of this case incorrectly? How could you say that *LIBERAL* Massachusetts representative didn't chose this case? He absolutely *DID* choose this case.