Free Republic

1. Crazy Roger ...

2. Crazy Roger ...

3. Crazy Roger ...

How do you take someone seriously when their tendency is to just call names rather than grant any credibility to their opponent's arguments?

I don't think Roger Taney was crazy, I think he just operated under a different set of premises than other people at the time wanted to accept.

Our modern era is somewhat similar. Nowadays in the Liberal circles, if you don't accept that a biological male can become a "woman", they consider you crazy.

The same people who thought Taney was crazy then, were the very same liberals, living in the liberal parts of the country, and pushing social boundaries, just as they are doing today.

So, it turns out, there was a Dred Scott conspiracy, but it was not hatched in Massachusetts...

Incorrect. The *OWNER* of that slave was that *LIBERAL* representative of trouble making Massachusetts. (Still making trouble today.)

Even Wikipedia tells a teeny bit of the truth on this matter.

"In 1850, Irene Emerson remarried and moved to Springfield, Massachusetts. Her new husband, Calvin C. Chaffee, was an abolitionist. He was elected to the U.S. Congress in 1854 and fiercely attacked by pro-slavery newspapers for his apparent hypocrisy in owning slaves. "

Chaffee could have freed him at any time, but chose not to do so because he expected the case to better serve as a propaganda tool, or a judicial activism tool.

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.

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.

That I don't approve of playing word games with laws? Yeah, that's the domain of liberals who somehow find rights to abortion and gay marriage in the 14th amendment.

The constitution clearly is referring to slaves. It is clearly authorizing the capture and return of escaped slaves.

Don't beat around the bush. Speak forthrightly.

Ultrasound? Yeah, that might kill an animal. You know how dangerous those things are. Could roast its insides or something.

And of course we need Bureaucrats throwing people in jail.

I am reminded of Rush Limbaugh's story about the woman who was braiding hair, and how all the other "licensed" hair salons objected and sicced the authorities on her.

Apparently you need a license to braid hair, in Colorado, I think.

More credentialism and guild protection going on here, which is another thing wrong with our society and our governing system.

My best guess is that he needs the GOP-E to not oppose him, (they helped the Democrats steal 2020) and so he's sending them signals to make them think he's learned his lesson and he's willing to work with them.

My hope is that he strings them along for enough time that he can get back into the White House, and thereafter he can tell them to piss up a rope.

He is a pragmatic and strategic thinker. I think he learned from the first go around, and I hope he is just doing this as part of his new ground game.

The evil schemer thought President Trump would use the National Guard to stop the coup they had planed.

Makes sense. If the National guard were there, they couldn't turn it into their Reichstag fire.

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

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.

More garbage/corrupt behavior by our judiciary.

Trump’s Commander-in-Chief Powers Were Revoked by Military Brass During January 6 Capitol Riot

When he gets back in, everyone of them needs to be court martialed and sent to prison.

Defiance of the President *OUGHT* to get them a treason charge, but I think sending them to prison would be a good response.

To understand what was going on in the Dred Scott decision, I highly recommend "Dred Scott, The Inside story" by David T. Hardy. Here is a link to a review I wrote about it.

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.

US 1787 Constitution never mentions slaves or slavery by name.

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.

George Conway is a lying insane piece of sh*t.

Trump should have punched him in the mouth years ago.

May have been, but they had the motive, and they benefitted greatly from it.

China may have taken political advantage of this; but I’ve wondered if they themselves weren’t exactly sure of what they had on their hands.

I think they released it on purpose. The people of Hong Kong were mocking them for over a year, and they dared not send in the army for fear of driving away investment and business, so they fumed and fumed until I think they hit upon the idea of creating a public health crisis that would allow them to send in the army under cover of a "medical emergency."

And it worked. They got the millions of protestors off the streets and have now successfully suppressed that Hong Kong independence from the Chinese leadership nonsense.

As a bonus, it helped them get rid of Trump, who was putting the hurt on them with his trade policy.

I think Georgia was swung by Chinese money going to the governor and the Secretary of state.

In retrospect, it is obvious that our government went way too far, as did many governments throughout the world.

But some of this overreaction was triggered by the information coming out of China. We now know that China was deliberately hyping how deadly this virus was in order to justify themselves in clearing the streets of Hong Kong of protestors.

We were constantly seeing videos from China of people falling down in the street. Images of body-bags everywhere laying on the ground and stacked in ambulances up to the ceiling.

China was spraying down the streets with disinfectant, people were wearing disposable booties on their feet to prevent tracking the virus into their homes on their shoes.

You may not have seen these videos or heard this news, but what *I* saw was frightening.

I now believe it was all deliberately fabricated to trigger a panic and to allow them to take total control of the streets of Hong Kong. (Where massive protests had been going on daily for over a year, and thereby humiliating the Chinese communist leadership.)

China faked us out, and many of our officials fell for it just as I did at the time.

But Slavery was, without question, the catalyst.

The possibility that the North would lose all the money the slaves produced was the catalyst.

In 1860, Southern production created 200 million in trade value with Europe, and 500 million in trade value with the North.

The vast bulk of that money ended up in Northern pockets, primarily as a consequence of protectionist laws and protectionist tariffs.

With the South seceding, the North was looking at kissing 700 million per year in value good bye.

They were not amused, and in fact were quite alarmed.

When they invaded, it wasn't because they cared about slaves, it was because they cared about themselves.

The Democrats turned from the party of small government, states rights and the working man to the party of centralized power, big government, socialism and most recently fascism....ie government and big business in bed together.

Fascism is how the civil war started. The protectionist laws passed by congress were meant to benefit primarily Northern businesses. Business became very interested in colluding with government for their own profit, and let us not forget Lincoln was a corporate railroad lawyer, which meant he had worked for the most powerful corporations in existence at the time.

He delivered to them handsomely when he signed the Railways act of 1862, which vastly increased their wealth.

I think Fascism has been baked into our cake since Alexander Hamilton proposed making laws specifically to benefit businesses. The South took the Jeffersonian approach.

It was only protecting slavery in the states where it already existed. It did not protect slavery in future states.

"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."

Seems as if future states could have slavery if they wanted it. The Corwin Amendment would seemingly prevent Congress from interfering.

It needed 3/4 of the states to ratify it, which seemed unlikely.

16 slave owning states in a Union of 33 states. It only needed 22 states to pass, and the Chief Proponent in the Senate, William Seward, (Former governor of New York, currently Senator of New York, and then designated as Lincoln's secretary of State) said he "guaranteed" that New York would pass it. Given New York's heavy economic dependency on slavery, this was a very realistic probability.

With New York on board, it is quite likely that all the states heavily dependent upon New York economically would have fallen in line. (Great Lake States.)

5 Northern States *DID* pass it.

It was pretty much a certainty that it would pass if the Southern states had taken them up on the offer.

The Southern aristocracy was all about expanding slavery into new territory.

This again. This is the lie that never quits.

Tell you what. You show me *WHERE* you think Slavery would expand to if left unchecked, and *I* will show you why that could not happen.

I will show you why it was impossible to "expand" slavery anywhere.

Cotton needed new ground.

Show me where you think it would have gone, and I'll show you why that wasn't going to happen.

The "expansion" argument was just a trick liberals pulled to stay in power. It was never a serious threat. It was phony baloney nonsense used as propaganda to help them keep a majority in the congress.

I've read this argument before. It's been years since I've read contemporary reports but I don't recall ever seeing the argument that Roberts puts forth.

As a strategy to get you out of the Union, you wouldn't want to say things that would undermine it.

As Roberts points out, Congress had every authority to raise taxes on them, and there was nothing they could do about it, so their only legal argument was to claim breach of contract on the issue of slavery, even though their real gripe was the money. (60% of the total value of their production went to the North.)

But to see an example of someone of that time period talking about the economic unfairness they were dealing with, here is a speech by Robert Rhett.

http://www.civilwarcauses.org/rhett.htm

My point in posting the article was to spur some thought over culpability for the violence and economic drag that 13% of our population imposes on the rest of us.

That 13% is the tool Liberals use to keep their grip on power. With that power comes their wealth. They suck most of their money out of government either by administering government policies or selling access to government through bribes.

They are not going to do anything about that 13% because that would threaten their power, and *THEY* control the media, publishing, the Universities, and government.

People who celebrate Confederate heritage don't seem to take that into account.

I don't have any Confederate heritage. My family didn't arrive here until after 1900, and none of them have ever lived in a Confederate state.

I just realized some years ago the narrative we have been sold regarding the civil war is intentionally misleading.