View single post by ebg
 Posted: Tue Apr 17th, 2012 12:33 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Fri Apr 13th, 2012
Posts: 22

  back to top

Mark wrote:
ebg, have you read the majority opinion of Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)? I think that would answer most of your questions. Chief Justice Taney argues that slaves (and indeed all 'persons of african decent') cannot be considered citizens because they are not included in the "people" mentioned in the preamble. His reasoning: they and their ancestors were brought by force into the United States and therefore could not be a part of those who ratified the Constitution. As to the legality of slavery, he argues that the 3/5 compromise (Art I, Sec II; also that is the origin of the phrase 'other persons') and Art I, Sec IX, which prohibited the slave trade after 1809, show that slavery was accepted as legal by the framers. It was very difficult for anyone to make a Constitutional argument for the illegality of slavery; in fact one famous abolitionist ripped up a copy of the Constitution saying that it was a pact with the devil. Lincoln and the Republican party acknowledged the legality of slavery where it existed, however they argued that Article IV, section III allowed the congress to regulate the spread of slavery into the territories. That was a much easier argument to make via the Constitution. I hope that helps.


First of all, it must be remember that we are not to look upon the founding fathers or any supreme court justice as Gods! Nor our we dictated to substitute the idealsm of the constitution for the teaching of our morality from the bible or other religious doctrine.

Even the Supreme Court Justices get it wrong...that's the beauty of the constitution, we are allowed to disagree with the Supreme Court. Because of the Dred Scott and and the fugitive slave act, the cause to abolish slavery was catalist to a fervent pitch. But the abolistionist worked within the System for their cause...eventually electing Lincoln to office.

You stated majority opinion...How many justices did not agreed with the decision of Chief Justice Taney, and what did those judges say was their reason not to agree?

If by Chief Justice Taney's reasoning of interpretation.... then Art I, Sec IX of the Constitution also shows that the "statue of limitation" for the acceptance of the legality of slavery ENDS in the year 1808 as written by the founding fathers.

Also, your saying the constitution refers to the slave population as "people." People that ar not entitled to their constitutional rights {b}because of there " foreced imigration statues" {/b}according the chief Justice Taney, but people neverless the same, and entilted to human rights in any other part of the world??????

Last edited on Tue Apr 17th, 2012 02:03 am by ebg

 Close Window