The President Behind the U.S. Supreme Court’s Worst Decision

Ozy.com ^ | 10/16/2018 | Sean Braswell

[William Tell]

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, ..."

Seems pretty clear to me. The Constitution also empowers the government to admit new states. Imagine the dilemma of an escaped slave living in one of the territories of the U.S. and then, upon admission of that territory as a state, finding himself bundled up and shipped back to his owner.

To me it would appear that slave owners were empowered to re-capture slaves who escaped to U.S. territories and that the federal government had no power to interfere.

[Political Junkie Too]

In a sense, are they not similar?

Is the baby inside you your "property" to do with as you please? Can you remove it, as you would an arm or leg, or a slave?

-PJ

[iowamark]

I am no expert on the subject, but I doubt if one could argue successfully for a right to private ownership of heavy ordnance.

[xzins]

Both Buchanan and Taney were democrats

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "The time you spent spot-welding Vermont into a discussion of the 13 original states would have been better spent reading, rather than skimming, my post."

Vermont, our 14th state, was actually the first to make abolition law.
So I think they deserve a place of honor in this discussion.

jeffersondem: "And did you know that the 'abolition' of slavery which you claim occurred in Pennsylvania 'by the time of the 1787 Constitution Convention' was actually more like gradual emancipation."

Sure, it's why I chose my words carefully: abolition was law in all those states -- some accomplished abolition more rapidly than others.

jeffersondem: "By some accounts, the Pennsylvania law was written so that it was possible for a slave descendant to remain in slavery until 1848."

Here are the actual numbers: in 1790 the US had about 700,000 slaves, 94% in the South.
Of the 40,000 Northern slaves, 10% were held in Pennsylvania in 1790.
1840 was the last census reporting any Pennsylvania slaves -- 64.

Gradual abolition was the model expected and practiced by our Founders at the time of the 1787 Constitution Convention.

So the facts remain just as I posted: "by the time of the 1787 Constitution Convention abolition was law in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Abolition was also dictated by Congress in 1787 in what were then called the 'Northwest Territories' -- Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois & Wisconsin."

Further, five states including North Carolina allowed freed slaves to vote, meaning Crazy Roger Taney was completely out of his mind in his 1856 Dred Scott ruling.

[BroJoeK]

ml/nj: "Leave me alone.
You've disqualified yourself."

My goodness you sound like a Democrat.
So why even pretend to be conservative?

The fact remains that if you think crazy Roger Taney was anything other than stark raving mad, then you are very, very confused, FRiend.

[jeffersondem]

“A vote to “include” is not necessarily a vote to “enshrine”—your favorite spin word, apparently.”

The word “include” is a synonym for the word “enshrine.” Look it up.

en·shrine [inˈSHrÄ«n, enˈSHrÄ«n] VERB (be enshrined) place (a revered or precious object) in an appropriate receptacle. “relics are enshrined under altars” preserve (a right, tradition, or idea) in a form that ensures it will be protected and respected. “the right of all workers to strike was enshrined in the new constitution” synonyms: set down · set out · spell out · express · lay down · set in stone · embody · realize · manifest · incorporate · represent · contain · include · preserve · treasure · [more]

[jeffersondem]

“So I think . . .”

Problem identified.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "If what you say is true, we can forever dismiss the notion that Lincoln and the North fought to 'free the slaves.' "

Naw, and you well know the truth of this matter, including:

1. Lincoln never proposed to "start war", period.
   
2. When war came Lincoln responded in order to preserve the Union.
   
3. Lincoln saw Emancipation as a weapon to a) win the war, b) preserve the Union and c) accomplish Republican abolitionist goals.

jeffersondem: "But fight they did. And probably for a very good reason: they thought it was in their economic and political best self interest."

But there are no quotes from Lincoln or anybody else saying that.
All the quotes we have talk about preserving the Union and abolishing slavery, not some alleged "money flow from Europe".

So you're just projecting your own ideas onto historical figures.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "In the last eight hours a disturbing condition has manifested. Eight hours. "

It seems that jeffersondem believes both Crazy Roger and Doughfaced Buchanan were perfectly rational human beings.
I disagree.

[BroJoeK]

"And the treasonous Breckenridge did try to get Kentucky to secede, he just failed in his efforts."

Right, Kentucky was Unionist by at least two to one, but that did not stop Confederates like Breckenridge from declaring secession or the Confederacy from accepting Kentucky as its 13th state.

[lepton]

Taney’s Ruling also went far beyond slavery/abolition, into ground where those of African descent and free could not be citizens, could not become citizens, and could not have recognized human rights.

It is also a far different thing to say that a slave had no place within the nation where he could “tag” to evade ownership, from saying that an owner willingly conveying the slave to a place known to prohibit slavery could pay no heed to the local laws - and further, that someone no longer bound to slavery could not, nor anyone on their behalf, protest an attempt to reassert the ownership.

[BroJoeK]

disc quoting HL Menken: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue.
The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination, it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves."

Iirc Menken was, like Roger Taney, a Marylander, which may help explain why he so quickly dismisses the self-determination of four million slaves.

But more to your point, saying it was "all about" Southern self-determination is like claiming WWII was all about, say, Japanese self-determination.
Indeed, the Japanese threat to the U.S. homeland was orders of magnitude less than Confederates.

Consider this: "self-determination" also applied to Western Virginia, Eastern Tennessee, Northern Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Maryland, Pennsylvania and several other states which were, ahem, visited by Confederate armies.

[DoodleDawg]

bfl

[BroJoeK]

William Tell: "Imagine the dilemma of an escaped slave living in one of the territories of the U.S. and then, upon admission of that territory as a state, finding himself bundled up and shipped back to his owner."

Fugitive slaves by Federal law were not protected in any US state or territory.

William Tell: "To me it would appear that slave owners were empowered to re-capture slaves who escaped to U.S. territories and that the federal government had no power to interfere."

Fugitive slaves were constitutionally captured & returned from any US territory or state.
The issue here wasn't Federal "interference" but rather states' compliance with Federal law.

[ml/nj]

What happened to the ABUSE button?

ML/NJ

[BroJoeK]

lepton:"Taney’s Ruling also went far beyond slavery/abolition, into ground where those of African descent and free could not be citizens, could not become citizens, and could not have recognized human rights."

Right, and that's the reason I refer to him as "Crazy Roger" -- because his ruling was not just contrary to what our Founders believed or intended, it was also insane.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Problem identified."

Obviously it's never a matter for jeffersondem.

[Albion Wilde]

No need to look it up, thanks. I’ve been an editor for more than 40 years and am fluent in several languages.

“Include” is value-neutral. It simply means something was grouped with some other thing or things.

The word “enshirine” imparts a quasi-religious connotation—in this Constitutional case, an enshrinement would be with great patriotic feeling or certainty of its rightness, even righteousness.

While something “enshrined” can of course have been “included” with other things, something “included” is not necessarily “enshrined”— just merely included—in this case, acknowledging the prior opposition or reluctance of many of the stakeholders to such inclusion after a hard-fought compromise.

See the difference a little nuance makes?

[rockrr]

The south was engaged in self-determinism when they turned their backs on their Constitution and countrymen. What they attempted was to force a unilateral (southern) determinism upon the entire continent.