Just read - no comments needed

[L Verge]

(06-21-2018 02:10 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 07:11 PM)L Verge Wrote:  And, speaking of Lincoln, Scott ruled against many of the unusual wartime measures that the President put into action.

Laurie, can you elaborate a little on the above quote from your post?

Also, wasn't Taney upholding the Constitution in the Dred Scott decision, as is the duty of the Supreme Court? It was the Constitution that needed to be changed, which the Civil War brought about.

First, I apologize for my error of saying "Scott" ruled against Lincoln's wartime measures. I certainly meant Taney, who objected to things like Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, treatment of civilians, etc. https://www.usnews.com/news/history/arti...al-dilemma

I certainly agree with you that Taney and six other Associate Justices felt that they were upholding the Constitution as it then stood, and I believe that they honestly thought that they were creating a solution by pointing out the non-citizen aspect. Make the black man a citizen, and then he was going to be protected under the law. Actually, I believe that about five states already made them citizens by the time the decision came around??

---

(06-21-2018 04:43 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 04:11 PM)L Verge Wrote:  David's last post still puts the onus on Taney alone.

I believe that if you will reread my last post, you will see that I was responding to five words that you had written: "Taney considered slavery an evil."

So far as I can tell, David, all you did was quote from Goodwin's Team of Rivals, and she in turn quotes another author. Both of them do the same as you - put the onus on Taney alone.

I never got past Taney and the Dred Scott vs. Sanford case (even though both of us are/were Marylanders who would have lived within about thirty miles of each other) until we did an exhibit on famous Marylanders of the Civil War. Writing labels and exhibit booklets requires a bit of research.