Posted on Mar 6, 2016
Dred Scott decision - Mar 06, 1857 - HISTORY.com
3.85K
46
30
6
6
0
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/dred-scott-decision?cmpid=email-hist-tdih-2016-0 [login to see] 6&om_rid=9754f68e782e800e414bdd9d8de07d822418f1b24b8c839f0c0af3b24529c73a&om_mid=27029671&kx_EmailCampaignID=3105&kx_EmailCampaignName=email-hist-tdih-2016-0 [login to see] 6&kx_EmailRecipientID=9754f68e782e800e414bdd9d8de07d822418f1b24b8c839f0c0af3b24529c73a
On this day in 1857, the United States Supreme Court issues a decision in the Dred Scott case, affirming the right of slave owners to take their slaves into the Western territories, thereby negating the doctrine of popular sovereignty and severely undermining the platform of the newly created Republican Party.
At the heart of the case was the most important question of the 1850s: Should slavery be allowed in the West? As part of the Compromise of 1850, residents of newly created territories could decide the issue of slavery by vote, a process known as popular sovereignty. When popular sovereignty was applied in Kansas in 1854, however, violence erupted. Americans hoped that the Supreme Court could settle the issue that had eluded a congressional solution.
Dred Scott was a slave whose owner, an army doctor, had spent time in Illinois, a free state, and Wisconsin, a free territory at the time of Scott’s residence. The Supreme Court was stacked in favor of the slave states. Five of the nine justices were from the South while another, Robert Grier of Pennsylvania, was staunchly pro-slavery. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote the majority decision, which was issued on March 6, 1857. The court held that Scott was not free based on his residence in either Illinois or Wisconsin becausehe was not considered a person under the U.S. Constitution–in the opinion of the justices, black people were not considered citizens when the Constitution was drafted in 1787. According to Taney, Dred Scott was the property of his owner, and property could not be taken from a person without due process of law.
In fact, there were free black citizens of the United States in 1787, but Taney and the other justices were attempting to halt further debate on the issue of slavery in the territories. The decision inflamed regional tensions, which burned for another four years before exploding into the Civil War.
On this day in 1857, the United States Supreme Court issues a decision in the Dred Scott case, affirming the right of slave owners to take their slaves into the Western territories, thereby negating the doctrine of popular sovereignty and severely undermining the platform of the newly created Republican Party.
At the heart of the case was the most important question of the 1850s: Should slavery be allowed in the West? As part of the Compromise of 1850, residents of newly created territories could decide the issue of slavery by vote, a process known as popular sovereignty. When popular sovereignty was applied in Kansas in 1854, however, violence erupted. Americans hoped that the Supreme Court could settle the issue that had eluded a congressional solution.
Dred Scott was a slave whose owner, an army doctor, had spent time in Illinois, a free state, and Wisconsin, a free territory at the time of Scott’s residence. The Supreme Court was stacked in favor of the slave states. Five of the nine justices were from the South while another, Robert Grier of Pennsylvania, was staunchly pro-slavery. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote the majority decision, which was issued on March 6, 1857. The court held that Scott was not free based on his residence in either Illinois or Wisconsin becausehe was not considered a person under the U.S. Constitution–in the opinion of the justices, black people were not considered citizens when the Constitution was drafted in 1787. According to Taney, Dred Scott was the property of his owner, and property could not be taken from a person without due process of law.
In fact, there were free black citizens of the United States in 1787, but Taney and the other justices were attempting to halt further debate on the issue of slavery in the territories. The decision inflamed regional tensions, which burned for another four years before exploding into the Civil War.
Dred Scott decision - Mar 06, 1857 - HISTORY.com
Posted from history.com
American History
Politics
Supreme Court
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
4
4
0
And yet, liberals tell us that we should obey the mandates of the SCOTUS now as if it were infallible.
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
COL Ted Mc - No Sir, I'm not suggesting that. The legislation I mentioned had already been designated by the state governments as a matter properly left to the people, and the people had already voted on it. Then the state legislatures later de idea to override the people's expressed will.
I am familiar with the concept of representative vs. pure democracy, Sir. In this case I wasn't suggesting or conjecturing; I was discussing what actually happened.
I am familiar with the concept of representative vs. pure democracy, Sir. In this case I wasn't suggesting or conjecturing; I was discussing what actually happened.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT (Join to see) - Captain; I can't speak for each and every one of the several states, but there is (as far as I know) no provision for a "binding referendum" (except in matters concerning the state's constitution) in most state's constitutions.
(In general) referendums are "advisory" only (certain types of taxation may be required by a State's constitution to be submitted to referendum before becoming law) and the State Legislatures are NOT bound by them. (After all, they WERE elected to be the "people's representatives" not the "people's slaves".) IF a State government sees that legislation enacted by another state (legislation which is sufficiently similar to that enacted in their own state) has been ruled "unconstitutional" then the State Legislature may well decide to void its own legislation - regardless of "the people's desire" simply to avoid their State becoming involved in protracted and expensive litigation which is almost 100% certain to result in their State's law being struck down.
(In general) referendums are "advisory" only (certain types of taxation may be required by a State's constitution to be submitted to referendum before becoming law) and the State Legislatures are NOT bound by them. (After all, they WERE elected to be the "people's representatives" not the "people's slaves".) IF a State government sees that legislation enacted by another state (legislation which is sufficiently similar to that enacted in their own state) has been ruled "unconstitutional" then the State Legislature may well decide to void its own legislation - regardless of "the people's desire" simply to avoid their State becoming involved in protracted and expensive litigation which is almost 100% certain to result in their State's law being struck down.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
COL Ted Mc - Understood, Sir. And all I was saying is that the people had been given a chance to express their will on the subject, and their will was overridden. Sometimes by a state legislature, but more often by activist judges. In the case of California's proposition 8, for example, the sponsors of the bill took it to the state courts first to see if it was ok for the people to decide it in the first place. And then, after the people had voted to uphold tradition and their will was signed into law, an activist San Francisco judge decided it wasn't ok after all and struck it down.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT (Join to see) - Captain; I think that I finally understand where you are coming from.
Asking for a ruling on whether a matter COULD be submitted to referendum is different than asking for a ruling on the "constitutionality" of the actual substance of the legislation passed. Judges are not SUPPOSED TO rule on anything other than the actual question put to them and I have no way of knowing (without reading the actual "reasons for judgment") whether the judge who ruled that the matter COULD be put to referendum was asked for (or expressed) any opinion on the "constitutionality" of the proposed legislation.
It is perfectly "constitutional" to pass "unconstitutional" legislation - it just means that the Judicial Branch then has to step in and exercise its constitutional powers and strike the legislation down. ("Boneheaded Stupid" legislation which is passed in accordance with the relevant constitutional provisions are NOT subject to the same "judicial striking down" as the Judicial Branch has no mandate to ensure the intelligence of legislators.)
BTW, as near as I can tell, the usual definition of "Activist Judge" is "Any judge who rules against any law that I want to see in force.".
Asking for a ruling on whether a matter COULD be submitted to referendum is different than asking for a ruling on the "constitutionality" of the actual substance of the legislation passed. Judges are not SUPPOSED TO rule on anything other than the actual question put to them and I have no way of knowing (without reading the actual "reasons for judgment") whether the judge who ruled that the matter COULD be put to referendum was asked for (or expressed) any opinion on the "constitutionality" of the proposed legislation.
It is perfectly "constitutional" to pass "unconstitutional" legislation - it just means that the Judicial Branch then has to step in and exercise its constitutional powers and strike the legislation down. ("Boneheaded Stupid" legislation which is passed in accordance with the relevant constitutional provisions are NOT subject to the same "judicial striking down" as the Judicial Branch has no mandate to ensure the intelligence of legislators.)
BTW, as near as I can tell, the usual definition of "Activist Judge" is "Any judge who rules against any law that I want to see in force.".
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I recently had a talk with many first generation immigrants. All of them thought that the REP was the party of Robert Byrd and other KKK members, They thought the REP party was the ones pushing for slavery vice freedom. I am not talking politics, but the concepts of our new immigrants and their view of our country. It is very interesting. Our school system and follow on learning is strange.
(4)
(0)
SFC Frank Hartley
People just don't understand the KKK was founded by the Democrat Party, and was used by the Dems to terrorize and murder thousands of blacks as well as white Republicans who supported blacks.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
This is the second worst decision ever by SCOTUS. Slaves are human beings too, worthy of the dignity and respect of freedom.
(3)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SP5 Mark Kuzinski
SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" - Again - we need to know our history and learn from it - we cannot continue to make the same mistakes.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google