I think there is some confusion on the procedural
basis for the Supreme Courts decision.  
When an action is brought to a Federal court out of a state court, or in
a state court alleging a dispute between two “citizens” (as was done in this
case)  you have to set out the grounds
for Federal jurisdiction.  In this case
Scott’s lawyer averred that Scott was a citizen of Missouri and that Sandford, under
whose authority it was alleged Scott was illegally being held in slavery, was a
citizen of New York.  Hence, it was argued
there was a “controversy between citizens of the different states” making the
case ripe for both state and Federal judicial review.  


Taney’s decision merely found that that the trial
court erred in exercising jurisdiction since slaves were not citizens in a
constitutional sense (no question about that fact) and a non-citizen could not
sue a citizen in either state of Federal court. 
There was a long line of precedent to support that finding.  In other words, a cow, wagon or other
personal property lacked standing to file and prosecute any form of law suit against an American citizen.   Nothing very surprising about that conclusion.


The rest of the Taney decision was essentially dicta
that really didn’t matter, except it was enthusiastically embraced by most
American citizens, with the exception of those relatively few abolitionists
that existed at the time.  Thus, when the
Dred Scott opinion was issued March 6, 1857, the U.S. Congress had thousands of
copies of the opinion printed up and distributed to the public at its expense.  
 JDS



SOUTHMAYD & MILLER4 OCEAN RIDGE BOULEVARD SOUTH
PALM COAST, FLORIDA 32137
386.445.9156
888.557.3686 FAX 

[log in to unmask] 
********************************************************** 
THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE ADDRESSEE SHOWN ABOVE. IT MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE DO NOT READ, COPY, OR USE IT, AND DO NOT DISCLOSE IT TO OTHERS. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER OF THE DELIVERY ERROR BY REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE AND THEN DELETE IT FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. 
********************************************************
 
> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:36:17 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Dred Scott decision
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> Paul,
> 
> You have somewhat clarified the Dred Scott decision, yet muddied it up at the same time. I will leave it to others to dissect your take on it. I wish only to address this statement:
> 
> On Dec 15, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Finkelman, Paul <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > First Missouri was a slave state. Period. Its Senators and Congressmen voted with the deep south on most issues; it laws persecuted free blacks (like other slave states) and abolitionists risked mobs or prosecution for opposing slavery.  In 1860 there were 115,000 slaves in Missouri.  Why Mr. Adams would think (in a previous post) Missouri was not a slave state is beyond my comprehension. 
> 
> Indeed, Missouri was slave state, and had been since it admittance the Union, as was of course one half of the "Missouri Compromise" in 1820. It did indeed vote to secede from the Union, though its convention voted pro-Union and the legislature and Governor soon fled the capital under General Lyon's union troops. That perhaps is another story. But like it or not, the 13th star in the Confederate flag was for Missouri. But only in a symbolic way. And I digress, except to say Missouri had its own civil war, and had more battles than the entire South combined. It was a very ugly affair.
> 
> That aside, I wish to address this part of your statement:
> 
> "it laws persecuted free blacks (like other slave states) and abolitionists risked mobs or prosecution for opposing slavery."
> 
> Where on earth do you come up with that? "Risked mobs?" What are you smoking?
> 
> Mob scenes maybe. But it was the Union army shooting down the pro-Southern "mobs" at the outbreak of the Civil War. Not the other way around.
> 
> Please, if you may,  enlighten me on my Missouri history.
> 
> Yours,
> Craig Kilby
> Native Missourian
> 
> 
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
 		 	   		  
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html