One mean spirited decision intended to end the effort to end slavery led to one million dead and the end of slavery anyway.
I spent some time this weekend comparing prosecutors and other legal eagles, who were all hoping to get the job of Attorney General. They were Candidates General, I guess. Trump was mentioned, and somewhere along the line, Dred Scott was mentioned as well. I turned to a highly placed official sort of dude and said, "Did you know that Dred Scott lived in Minnesota?" He did not know that. So I asked a couple of other people if they knew, and they did not. Finally I found the smartest person in the room and he didn't know either.
Gee, I thought, if you want to be the Attorney General off Minnesota and you are going to invoke the name of Dred Scott, you really ought to know that he lived just a few short miles away from where you are standing there invoking!
So I wrote this:
Dred Scott
In 1857, US Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that a person who is black and of African ancestry can never be thought of as an American citizen, and therefore, has no standing to bring a law suit in federal court. In the same decision, Taney determined that a previous act of Congress that prohibited slavery in most of the territory north of a certain latitude, in land that was in the United States but not in a given state, was unconstitutional. In so doing he decided and determined that the US Congress could not prohibit slavery.
This decision was made in response to a suit filed by a slave named Dred Scott, who lived for a while, during a very important part of his life, just south of the Twin Cities.
Mr. Scott had been born a slave in Missouri, but later lived in various non-slave territories, as one of his owners was in the military and moved around a lot. During that time, he met and married Harriet Robinson, who was also a slave. Mr. Scott was owned by a military doctor stationed at Fort Snelling, which had been built on Lakota-Dakota land known as B'Dote (or Bdote) near what is now Bloomington Minnesota, home of the Mall of America. Ms. Robinson's owner was Lawrence Taliaferro, who was the fort's Indian Agent. Since Taliaferro was a Justice of the Peace, it was he who both gave his slave the permission to marry her fiance, and it was he who performed the ceremony.
The basement quarters of the Scott family at Fort Snelling.
At the time, Fort Snelling was in "Wisconsin Territory," which is why, I suspect, Minnesotans by and large don't know that Dred Scott lived here. Wisconsin Territory included parts of North and South Dakota, all of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and possibly tiny bits of adjoining lands. But if you come across a reference to Dred Scott in a history book, the word "Wisconsin" is right there, and Minnesotans think of the Green Bay Packers and move on.
Previous legal decisions, and a certain amount of common logic sprinkled with a sense of humanity, had already determined that a slave who then lived as a free person for a while got to be a free person for the rest of their lives. Since slavery was not legal in what was to eventually become Minnesota, and other territories in which Scott lived, he had a pretty solid legal case to make that he should be freed even after his owner moved him back into a slave state at a later time.
In order for Justice Taney to determine that Scott's case was invalid, he had to create law that made the federal abolition of slavery in all non-state territories impossible, and to make all blacks non-citizens. Taney's ruling was only the second time the Supreme Court had found an act of Congress unconstitutional, and of all the SCOTUS decisions ever made, this one had by far the greatest and most negative ultimate consequence.
Mr. Scott's history is more complicated. There were changes in who owned him. He had tried to buy his freedom. He and his wife had children, including children born in non-slave territory. Abolitionists got involved. The Dred Scott vs. Sandford supreme court case, and all the legal events that preceded it, were major news at the time. The final result of Taney's decision sealed the fate of the United States, set back civil rights by a century and a half, and contributed materially to the violent deaths of about a million people.
Fast forward to 1879.
From the time of the birth of the nation, but with greater intensity staring around 1830, and getting more and more intense in subsequent decades, the United States continuously wrestled with the issue of slavery. Abraham Lincoln had always thought slavery was bad, but he was enamored with the US Constitution and could see no easy direct way to make slavery illegal country-wide. He felt it would eventually die out as a practice, through a combination of legal and social changes.
But reducing or eliminating slavery had become an order of magnitude more difficult than it ever had to be because of Taney's Supreme Court ruling. When Abraham Lincoln was elected to be president of the United States, slave owners felt that their ownership of other humans, and their right to spread that practice to the other sates simply by moving to them (with their property, their slaves) was threatened. This threat was sufficient that they assembled armies, caused their states to separate from the Union, and attacked the US Federal government with military force. The ensuing Civil War is the reason most of the previously mentioned million people died, but many others, blacks, have been killed before, during, and after the war by white supremacists. (This includes Union soldiers who were black, who were routinely killed on the spot when taken prisoner by Southern soldiers.)
After the war, there was a rapid and remarkable shift in society and politics in the south. Federal authority made it possible and relatively safe for southern Blacks to run for office and to vote in elections. Suddenly there were black faces in state legislatures and the US Congress.
But at the same time organizations like the Klu Klux Klan formed, and these organizations and their supporters infiltrated local and state governments. In some cases, they set up separate governments. On election day, in some jurisdictions, there were two voting boxes, and you could pick which one to cast your ballot in. The white supremacists had their vote, everyone else had a different vote, and when the results were different, the federal government would enforce the correct vote. At times, these disputes turned into small shooting wars, and were sometimes accompanied by random slaughter of blacks living in local communities.
Eventually the new fight over the old south fully evolved at the federal level and things got really strange.
In 1876, the United States had its most contentious election for president ever. Democrat Samuel Tilden, a Democrat (and thus of the party of the South) from New York (and thus maybe not so much from the party of the south) won 50.9% of the vote to Rutherford B. Hayes' 47.9%. Hayes is credited with having had 185 electoral votes to Tilden's 184.
Initially, however, the count was Tilden with 184 electoral votes, Hayes with 165, and 20 votes from that special category of votes that involved the multiple voting boxes and other shenanigans. The states with the bad votes were Florida (of course), Louisiana, and South Carolina (and there was a small problem in Oregon as well).
Eventually, a deal was struck. This deal was almost certainly illegal and extra constitutional, but even if that wasn't the case, the deal was bad. But it is hard to say because the process and even details of the decisions made in the deal were kept secret and to this day we are not entirely sure what happened.
Rutherford Hayes, the Republican, was awarded all the messy votes, and became president. But, in return for keeping the Presidency out of the hands of the Party of Slavery, the federal authorities that were in the South keeping the white supresists at bay were withdrawn.
This is the beginning of the Jim Crow era, the era of terror and and harassment, hate and murder, bestowed by southern whites on southern blacks.
OK, fast forward to 1879 but for real this time, now that you have the context.
Slavery, a fight against slavery, Roger Taney personally ensures the continuation of slavery for a few, as well as the many, and produces the most bone-headed court decision ever, which is on the top list of three or four reasons that definitely led to the Civil War, followed by a lot of white supremacist whinging about, followed by the Jim Crow era.
And that is when art and antiquities collector William Walters (of the Walters Museum), who had hid out in Europe during the Civil War and seems to have been involved in about zero political activities as far as I can tell, paid for the erection of a monument to Roger Taney in Baltimore.
Go figure.
Now, fast forward a bit farther to March 6th, 2017. That is when this happened:
This is Charles Taney III, a great great grand whatever of Roger Taney, hugging Jynne Jackson, a great great grand whatever of Dred Scott, in front of the Taney statue. This photograph was taken at a ceremony in which Taney publicly apologized to Jackson.
Lynne M. Jackson winced outside the Maryland State House on Monday as she listened to Charlie Taney repeat some of the words his great-great-grand-uncle wrote in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision 160 years ago.
Black people cannot be U.S. citizens and have no rights except the ones that white people give them. Whites are superior to blacks. Slavery is legal.
“You can’t hide from the words that [Roger Brooke] Taney wrote,” Charlie Taney said, standing a few feet from a statue of his ancestor, who lived in Maryland and was chief justice of the nation’s highest court from 1836 until his death in 1864.
“You can’t run, you can’t hide, you can’t look away. You have to face them.”
Then Charlie Taney turned to Jackson, the great-great granddaughter of Scott, an enslaved man who sued for his freedom. He apologized — on behalf of his family, to the Scott family and to all African Americans, for the “terrible injustice of the Dred Scott decision.”
And just a few short months later. during the early morning hours of August 18th, as a result of civil unrest stemming from pro-Nazi and pro-white supremacist remarks made by President Donald Trump, that Taney statue was removed:
Many of the Southern statues related to the Civil War, or, I suppose,pro-slavery supreme court decisions, were installed at about the same time as the Taney sculpture. The motivation behind the Taney statue, and possibly, who was really behind it, are an enigma, but in many cases, statues or monuments were erected by local governments under pressure (from within or elsewhere) by organizations like the KKK or other post war white supremacist groups and individuals. These statues were put up after the election of 1876 and the start of the Jim Crow era and their erection was very much part of that social movement.
A second wave of statue building and memorializing of things Southern happened during the 20th century Civil Rights Era. At this time, many schools were named after southern notables.
So at the start of Jim Crow, blacks living in southern cities were served up a reminder of their place in southern society. During the Civil Rights Era, black students were served up a reminder of their place in southern society, during the period of forced integration of schools.
No wonder so many northerners require southerns to prove that they are not a) assholes or b) stupid before giving them a break. Considering that our least racists and overall best presidents have come from the South, and Donald Trump comes from Queens, New York, northerners should give southerners more of a break. But we can do that while at the same time noting that there are a lot of people in this country that don't deserve anyone's respect because of their hateful views.
Meanwhile, in Bloomington, MN, you can find a memorial to Dred Scott, as well as a Dred Scott miniature golf course, a playground, and a car repair place.
I'd tell you what the plaques in Bloomington say, but I can't find the text. I will visit the park soon and report back, it is not too far from me.
Meanwhile, if you live in or near the Twin Cities, get over to Fort Snelling and visit the place where Harriet and Dred lived. There is some interpretive history there, and the rest of the historic site is pretty interesting too.
The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics
Dred Scott's Revenge: A Legal History of Race and Freedom in America
Dred Scott v. Sandford: A Brief History with Documents (Bedford Series in History & Culture)
Dred and Harriet Scott: A Family's Struggle for Freedom
I, Dred Scott: A Fictional Slave Narrative Based on the Life and Legal Precedent of Dred Scott
- Log in to post comments
More like this
>Taney ruled that a person who is black and of African ancestry can never be thought of as an American citizen,
He based this on the acts of various states and Congress which limited right of blacks who are citizens.
If blacks are citizens, they are entitled to vote. Since they are not entitled to vote(in free states), they are not citizens.
It was the dissent that denied blacks the right to vote.
After the passage of the Civil War Amendments, the Taney who wrote Dred Scott would have ruled for Plessy.
MikeN,
What "dissent" are you talking about?
Fuck knows. Apparently it's going to be the fault of the abolutionists that the blacks were enslaved or something.
"If blacks are citizens, they are entitled to vote. Since they are not entitled to vote(in free states), they are not citizens."
The slave owners wanted the vote for themselves. They wanted to use their slaves' votes to vote for what they wanted. Their slaves were not free to vote under their plan.
Not forgetting that the constitution says explicitly that *all* men are created equal with *inalienable* rights to liberty and so forth.
Sorry, wrong again, "mike".
"If blacks are citizens, they are entitled to vote. Since they are not entitled to vote(in free states), they are not citizens."
Circular much?
Just the usual thrashing and contorting. Whatever.
zebra #2.
I believe MikeN is referring to the famous dissent in the Supreme Court decision of Dred Scott v. Sandford of 1857.
#2, zebra Rick is correct, though I never thought of it as famous.
>Not forgetting that the constitution says explicitly that *all* men are created equal with *inalienable* rights to liberty and so forth.
Lawyer wow strikes again. Where does the Constitution say this, specifically?
All of your points are invalid to what I was saying. Dred Scott could very well be the wrong decision and I haven't looked at the second part of the argument. I just find it interesting that after Amendments 13-15 the Dred Scott decision would have meant no Jim Crow, while the dissent says it's OK.
"Where does the Constitution say this, specifically?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal
Dumbass.
That is not a link to the Constitution. Just tell me article, chapter, etc, or an amendment(which would have to precede the 13th to be relevant to this case).
Or you could just admit that you were wrong in #5.
See also the preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"That is not a link to the Constitution"
It is the declaration of the USA that allowed the USA to form.
Are you telling everyone that you think the USA should have remained a part of the British Empire?
Or you could admit that you are wrong multiple times you racist little fuckwit.
"Or you could just admit that you were wrong in #5."
Since I'm not, why should I lie just to make your cracker ass feel safer?
"and I haven’t looked at the second part of the argument"
Then why not admit you're making claims as of fact out of your personal ignorance, retard?
MikeN,
You aren't making much sense, as often happens. This is from the dissent by Justice Curtis:
I don't know where you got some out-of-context language that you seem to attribute to Taney-- well, I can guess that it is some right-wing racist blog-- but however you interpret it, it doesn't connect with what you are saying. Unless you can explain your reasoning clearly in your own words, you are wasting everyone's time.
Why would Taney "rule for Plessy"?
zebra #15:
I believe MikeN was referring to a different Supreme Court case:
"Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896) was a landmark constitutional law case of the US Supreme Court. It upheld state racial segregation laws for public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal"."
RickA,
Thanks, but I am well aware of what Plessy is-- and I await MikeN's explanation of how all these disparate things are connected.
But perhaps it was a case of CUI?
"I believe MikeN was referring to a different Supreme Court case"
And what is it that made you believe this? Nothing textual on this thread indicates anything of the sort, so is this from some rightwing nazi apologist site?
zebra #17:
What does "CUI" mean?
It's latin for "Where did you get your belief from", dick.
Wow,
There's nothing not factual here-- it's just that he (Mike) is doing the "vague and incoherent" schtick, either intentionally of because of some impairment.
Aye, but dick here believes otherwise. SOMETHING made him believe in a different case. I don't know how many supreme court cases appear but I'd guess well over 90% of them have a dissent on them, so which one's "dissent" is a crapshoot.
Unless there's something hidden in mike's blithering (and the righwing should be 100% against slavery, since that is the opposite of a free market and even kills businesses that have to pay their workers), there must be some other communication link between the two.
I suspect a rightwing rag with some cod talking points to apologise for their racism they have in common.
But, hey, like with "mike", dick should explain himself too. After all, I may be doing them a disservice. Stranger things have happened.
"These statues were put up after the election of 1876 and the start of the Jim Crow era" – should really read "Jim Crow Laws era".
The term "Jim Crow Law" has been dated back to 1892, but "Jump Jim Crow" was popularised from 1828 by the blackface minstrel song and dance act of Thomas D. Rice, and was a pejorative term by the late 1830s. Thus long predating the laws.
Leaving the oddity that a rock near Hunters Quay in Scotland was dubbed the "Jim Crow Stone" before 1885, apparently before use of the terminology for the laws. Any possible racist connotation was long forgotten locally, until controversy was briefly stirred by attempts to cover over painted markings on the rock, which now remain in a similar vein to The Indian Rock and The Crocodile Rock on Cumbrae, further down the Clyde.
Clearly not in the same league as the 1920s Confederate statues in the U.S., which appear to be more about promoting Ku Klux Klan ideas than anything else.
Note: I changed the title, featured image, and opening of this post because I realized people were skipping past it thinking it was a rant about Minnesotans. Now, maybe somebody will read it!
Hey, I did read it. The first bit (which was a dig on Minnesota) and the last (which is about what you want to do) and the bit in the middle which was about the event this year where the great great grand something of Taney publicly said sorry which was good to hear.
I don't have anything to say on how southerners or northerners are upheld except as stereotypes. And they usually pick the least pleasant since they're the most remarkable.
TYT have twice shown up that the stereotypes are invalid, at least when face to face with an individual. One hated the depressed job market for coal and acknowledged that it was hope (and admitted it was faint and desperate), not the left, and the other more recent one was really pissed off with the turtleneck college kid white supremacist who did not represent that very much apparent hillbilly redneck.
In 35, Wow says
>the constitution says explicitly that *all* men are created equal with *inalienable* rights to liberty and so forth.
Insists he is not wrong. Provides reference to the Preamble, helpfully quoting it
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Zebra, all the quotes I provided come from the Dred Scott decision, either Taney's or the dissent.
Of course the dissenters reached a different conclusion. That's why it's called a dissent. They also said it is ridiculous to suggest blacks have the right to vote if they are citizens, while Taney said if they are citizens they have the right to vote(and other rights). Taney apparently finds the thought so horrible he rules they can't be citizens. However, I wrote previously that Taney appeared to be a fierce abolitionist in a court proceeding in the 1830s, so it is possible he merely saw that blacks do not have the right to vote in various Northern states.
So mike says that the USA should never have left the British Empire.
Well done, chap. You'd prefer vassalage to a woman than to give the blacks rights.
"Of course the dissenters reached a different conclusion."
But dissent doesn't mean this is why there was continued slavery. Which is what zebra was damn well asking for the connection with.
"They also said it is ridiculous to suggest blacks have the right to vote if they are citizens, while Taney said if they are citizens they have the right to vote(and other rights"
If they'd said it you could quote it, not claim they did.
"Taney appeared to be a fierce abolitionist in a court proceeding "
And where did you get THIS appearance from? Wishes and hopes to make the problem the lefties?
I said Taney would rule for Plessy because of the quote above. After the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, blacks are citizens, and Taney has written they should be treated equally, which the dissenter Curtis said is not required.
It is of course possible that Taney was just trying to invent an argument towards the pro-slavery conclusion he preferred, but the logic of his decision leads towards Plessy and against Jim Crow.
"I said Taney would rule for Plessy because of the quote above."
WRONG. You said:
But the dissent does not indicate anything of the sort. The quote you gave afterward makes no indication and I am having to assume that it was the "dissent" you are talking about and that it came from Curtis. But that doesn't say it is not required.
The second quoted text says that some have objected to letting Dredd Scott bring claim as a citizen because then they'd have to be given the vote, and that this argument was carrying the day. The quote says that this argument is invalid and that even if blacks could not vote or be free, they still had the right to court redress. Their right to the rule of law is independent of their citizenship and that an argument by consequences was not valid.
Not that blacks could not vote or be full citizens, but that it is irrelevant whether they could or not as to whether they had a right to the protection and aid of the law.
"and Taney has written they should be treated equally"
Where?
And where, by the way, do you get this appearance from?
"Taney appeared to be a fierce abolitionist in a court proceeding in the 1830s"
And where is the evidence for this:
"Taney said if they are citizens they have the right to vote(and other rights)"
?
The closest I can see is if your first quote is Taney, but in there he says that they can't be citizens because they're not allowed to vote in some states (that you call "free" states, talk about Orwellian...). Not that they should be citizens, that they cannot be as he sees it.
Which was dissented as a reason to deny the rule of law in the defence of slaves.
Leaving Wow's inability to distinguish between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and in his not understanding that many parts of the Constitution that follows the Preamble not only applies to citizens but non-citizen residents, tourists, etc (due process, unreasonable search, etc), I shall comment on a snippet of Greg's original post:
"Slavery, a fight against slavery, Roger Taney personally ensures the continuation of slavery for a few, as well as the many, and produces the most bone-headed court decision ever"
Taney was a smart man, and the decision wasn't bone-headed at all, but rather an extremely contorted and thought-out effort to use the Constitution to strip slaves of any federal rights once and for all. "bone-headed" implies that the ruling may've just been a stupid mistake, rather than the extremely politically-motivated and (IMO) immoral use of his and the Court's powers. Note that an important result of this court case was to strip the federal government of the right to pass laws to restrict slavery in new federal territories, a political victory that had escaped the South in its efforts in Congress for quite some time.
Reading more about this case in Wikipedia, and apparently the first rounds of the legal battle (at the state court level) were paid for by the family of Dred Scott's previous owner, the Blow family. Apparently costs became more than they could handle. Scott's services had long been leased out by his owner, and who decided to help?
"At this point, the case looked hopeless, and the Blow family decided that they could no longer pay for Scott's legal costs. Scott also lost both of his lawyers, as Alexander Field had moved to Louisiana and David Hall had died. The case was now undertaken pro bono by Roswell Field, whose office employed Dred Scott as a janitor. "
Very interesting ...
"Leaving Wow’s inability to distinguish between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution"
Why? I am able to distinguish between them. But unlike you I know what the declaration means. Apparently you think it means nothing but eggy farts at breakfast table. Something unpleasant to pretend never happened.
"and in his not understanding that many parts of the Constitution that follows the Preamble not only applies to citizens but non-citizen residents"
Based on you making shit up. But that's your deal, innit. Because I wouldn't let you get away with shit even though you complained that it was more important to get those deniers.
And why "his"? Sorry you sexist fuckwit, but you have nothing to base that on, only your preconceptions of what is allowed and what is not allowed from the sexes.
Dho, distinguishing ability is there, but not the ability to admit error.
What error, dumbass?
Oh, you're trying to avoid what the USA formed over. Those founding fathers were all commies.
Are you going to admit your error not knowing where "inalienable rights" comes from, "mike"?
No? Because it would be a dick move to come to that assertion unless I was completely clueless?
Wow was wrong in #5, when he/she inserted words from the Declaration of Independence into the USA constitution.
MikeN pointed this out in #8 - and he is correct and Wow is wrong. But Wow won't admit to being wrong.
dhogaza pointed this out in #36 and again Wow won't admit to being wrong.
Wow - you are wrong that the constitution said what the declaration of independence actually said. You should just admit you got the two documents mixed up.
I predict you will not admit you were wrong.
I further predict you will call me at least one name.
Lets see if my predictions come true.
No I wasn't.
Were you wrong when you didn't know where "inalienable rights" occurred?
I bet you don't even know what the declaration means, do you. Nor how it was used to make slaves fight for the white people's freedom by proclaiming that this was freeing America(tm).
Do you.
You're just clueless but hell bent on trying to find a problem that never existed even if it screws you over.
"MikeN pointed this out in #8"
No, "mike" didn't know where the phrase "inalienable rights" came from in #8. His mistake, wasn't it?
Funny how you can't see post #8, though.
"I predict you will not admit you were wrong."
And I predict you will insist you're wrong.
I also predict that you will claim you always knew where the phrase "inalienable rights" came from.
And I predict you will insist you were not wrong about it.
I also predict you and "mike" will refuse to accept mike was wrong in #1, even when he doubled down.
I also predict neither of you will accept AGW as real any time this month.
Wow says in comment #5:
{Not forgetting that the constitution says explicitly that *all* men are created equal with *inalienable* rights to liberty and so forth.}
No, that's the Declaration of Independence - as others have pointed out. It should also be pointed out that the word "inalienable" cannot be found in EITHER the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. I believe the word you were looking for is "unalienable" which is found in the Declaration of Independence.
Why do you persist in refusing to admit such easily verifiable mistakes? It makes all of your statements untrustworthy when you refuse to acknowledge mistakes.
"No, that’s the Declaration of Independence"
Correct. As I showed in a link in post #9.
"as others have pointed out."
Nope. Nobody did. Strange that. Did you check? Or did you assume? Or did you see things not there? I pointed it out first. Twice. Despite proclamations that I provide where the constitution says "inalienable rights".
Odd how what you expected to see changes what you see, innit?
" I believe the word you were looking for is “unalienable” "
Is it? Fair enough. near 300 years of language shift. Means the exact same thing.
"Why do you persist in refusing to admit such easily verifiable mistakes? "
I didn't. In either accusation from you.
Funny how what you expected to see changes what you thought you saw, innit.
Hey, kev, have you also noticed that nobody cares that mike got it wrong in #1 then doubled down, then tripled down.
Or did you not care to find out who was wrong, you were looking for something more than correct?
Wow - MikeN says in comment #8:
{Lawyer wow strikes again. Where does the Constitution say this, specifically?}
Is this not pointing out that you've misquoted the Constitution?
In your comment #9 you do not admit a mistake. In fact, you call MikeN a "dumbass" when he was correct in questioning your citation of the Constitution in comment #5.
Your response to mine is again typical; you never actually admit a mistake - and try to twist actual thread history to intimate that you pointed out your own mistake first. Rather than simply admit to the mistake you make excuses.
testify
He's baaack...
Really, someone needs to fix this intermittent comment black hole...
But anyway, dhogaza is on the right track. What I was trying to say when the Comment Monster ate my comments for the last many hours, was "At Least Read Fricken' Wickepedia!" instead of yammering on with no clue.
It quotes Taney's decision, and Taney's decision is based on pure racism. Anyone disagree?
But hey, why deal with the actual history that Greg was trying to bring out...
Zebra, I am not disagreeing with that point. If it was racism then as I said, I would be incorrect that Taney would rule for Plessy. However, the logic of his decision would require such a ruling. Taney said that if blacks were citizens, they must be treated equally, while the dissenter Curtis(Wikipedia points out that his brother was Scott's lawyer. Would that be allowed today?) said it's OK for citizens to be treated differently based on skin color.
"Zebra, I am not disagreeing with that point. "
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
In a thread where you whined about how I refused to say I was wrong, you come up with that lame-ass weaselese? Oh yeah, you aren't disagreeing with it, you just make claims contrary to it and with a completely different meaning. You just never said "Nuh uh".
LOL.
" If it was racism then as I said, I would be incorrect that Taney would rule for Plessy"
Where? Here?
?
Ooops!
ROFL!
"the dissenter Curtis( said it’s OK for citizens to be treated differently based on skin color."
Nope. Wrong again.
But, hey, Kev, D'oh!, you'll want to berate "mike" here for being too stupid to admit his herror, right?
"Is this not pointing out that you’ve misquoted the Constitution?"
Ooh, no, No it isn't, dearie. Neither is it saying it's in the declaration of independence.
But it looks like you just cannot bring yourself to admit you were wrong, can you?
Snrk.
"It quotes Taney’s decision, and Taney’s decision is based on pure racism. Anyone disagree?"
"Mike" doesn't disagree, he just insists it's something else other than!
MikeN,
I asked you where you got your original quote, that you attribute to Taney. Still waiting...
And I'm curious if you actually read the quote I referenced in Wikipedia, since you still don't seem to understand Taney's argument.
Zebra, I posted a long response, the blog died while I was writing it, and I instead posted #31.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393#writing-USSC_CR_00…
Careful as all opinions are in a single text.
I read the Wikipedia quotes.
I've always thought that Taney was motivated by racism in his decision, stretching to produce a right to slavery. The only thing that gives me pause now from agreeing(not that I am disagreeing) is that Taney once argued the following in court:
My point is that the Civil War Amendments eliminate most of Taney's arguments, and the arguments that remain declare Jim Crow to be invalid, while one dissenter argued blacks could be citizens and still denied the right to vote.
Wow's done what no one else has managed to do on this blog: get me, MikeN, Rick and others to actually agree on something. Of course, that something's just that Wow's an ass and an idiot, but hey, low bar and all, it's a start, isn't it? :)
"Why? I am able to distinguish between them. But unlike you I know what the declaration means. Apparently you think it means nothing but eggy farts at breakfast table. Something unpleasant to pretend never happened."
The Declaration was essentially an explanation and justification for those who signed it committing treason against their country, England. It was certainly more flowery and high-minded than the reason given by the South for committing treason against the United States ("slaves, slaves, and more slaves!"). But the historical fact is that the Founders knew they were committing treason (and would likely be executed if the Revolution failed), and that the Declaration was meant to rally the citizenry and to provide ammunition for their friends in Parliament who they hoped would be able to get that body and the King to accept their independence.
The Articles of Confederation bound the states loosely. Which leads to the preamble of the Constitution, "to create a more perfect Union" - more perfect than that formed by the Articles. While the Declaration was revered as a sort of philosophical foundational document for the Union, it really didn't enter into the construction of the Constitution at all. "unalienable rights" wasn't granted by the Constitution which, after all, explicitly acknowledged slavery.
MikeN,
That's not a "point", it's just three assertions that don't really make sense.
Taney maintains that African-Americans are "a race", and, that they are an "inferior" race that can be treated as property. You can even say that slavery should end "sometime" and still be a racist.
How you think all this relates to Plessy is still beyond me.
With respect to voting, perhaps you should read the history of the women's voting rights process-- in fact, States did individually determine that until the 19th Amendment.
Sorry, I really can't follow your reasoning.
"Wow’s done what no one else has managed to do on this blog: get me, MikeN, Rick and others to actually agree on something"
Of course that's because you loathe me and want to see me hang. You never bother to post unless it's to slag me off.
But you're totally not obsessed.
Hey, I note that you you ,d'oh,do not want to see "Mike"'s error and his octupling down of the bullshit. Not seeing you disagree there. Not at all.
"The Declaration was essentially an explanation and justification for those who signed it committing treason against their country"
So the freedoms of people is, you claim, a complete and utter bald faced lie.
Good luck making THAT fly.
They get pissed off when you tell them that they invented the post of president to make it look to the yokels like they had a king. Telling them they were bullshiting and everyone accepts it was bullshit about US freedoms and equality (and quadruply about god, the constitutionalists ALWAYS bleat on about how god is in the constitution when it's in the declaration it talks about god, the constitution carefully avoids it).
And yet it;s only here you refuse to see what your error is.
Laser like focus on an error that doesn't even exist.
"The Articles of Confederation bound the states loosely. Which leads to the preamble of the Constitution"
Sine you refuse point blank to allow the declaration to be in any way a source for the constitution, you cannot claim that the articles do.
Doing so is your lie, d'oh. But I predict you will double down on it and never accept that accusation, insisting you were right all along.
You're a predictable idiot. But still an idiot.
"My point is that the Civil War Amendments eliminate most of Taney’s arguments"
But that wasn't what you claimed. You claimed he was for the emancipation and that the dissent in this case was the "real reason" slavery went on for decades longer.
The sonic boom of the goalposts moving was unheard by d'oh because his head was shoved so firmly up your ass, it appears. He over-kissed it.
"while one dissenter argued blacks could be citizens and still denied the right to vote."
Except that is a flat out lie. The ONLY PERSON who is saying that is you, "mike". And oddly enough the echoes of your voice never reached d'oh or kevin.
"I read the Wikipedia quotes."
So you knew your claims were bollocks. It wasn't you were misled, it's that you knowingly lied.