Bachmann: Founding fathers ‘worked tirelessly’ to end slavery

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Sorry. What is the Statute of Limitations on Civil Rights again?

First you'd have to start with acknowledging that many of the founding fathers freed their slaves and families well over 80 years previously.

OK, is it just me or have we entered an alternate reality?

Since as you say "The Founding Fathers freed their slaves as a justification that they 'worked tirelessly to end slavery' it might carry a little more validation if they never owned slaves to begin with. Don't cha think?

I mean that is like a bank robber freed his hostages so he is not guilty of robbing the bank, no?

For Christ sakes people, I am not proud of these facts either but that is no excuse to rewrite history or sweep it under the rug!

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Since as you say "The Founding Fathers freed their slaves as a justification that they 'worked tirelessly to end slavery' it might carry a little more validation if they never owned slaves to begin with. Don't cha think?

For Christ sakes people, I am not proud of these facts either but that is no excuse to rewrite history or sweep it under the rug!

As Previously stated. Nice Cherry picking the facts and taking this out of historical context of the mindset of the period. [Where it was socially accepted to have slaves]

Yet they freed them. Can you at least set aside your present day political bias and acknowledge that fact?

Being set free may not seem that worthy to your myopic and politicaly skewed current view but I'm damn sure it meant a whole lot to those slaves and their families that were freed well before the civil war. let's not forget the civil war was fought between free states and slave states. Where do you think the mind set for the free states originated from?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

*sigh*
Cherry pick much? Applying a 21st century mind-set to an 18th century situation is rather lazy. You need to take that extra step and think in terms of the situation at that time.
C'mon, take my hand, puddin', I'll walk you through it.

The reverse is just as true...which makes me wonder why Beck continues to rave about the founding fathers in order to approach today's issues

reply to post by SLAYER69


It is sad to think that "at the time it was socially acceptable" is the best excuse that you can muster. You seem to trivialize the act as if to be on par with quitting smoking.

These were not simply unwilling indentured servants. These were sentient human beings treated as sub human in deplorable conditions against their will. I fail to see any honor or fond nostalgia being derived from that.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

*sigh*
Cherry pick much? Applying a 21st century mind-set to an 18th century situation is rather lazy. You need to take that extra step and think in terms of the situation at that time.
C'mon, take my hand, puddin', I'll walk you through it.

The reverse is just as true...which makes me wonder why Beck continues to rave about the founding fathers in order to approach today's issues

Wow. So you think the Constitution is not worthy today. Wow. Okay. I suppose you have something better in mind.

Really, I'm shocked. I've never "talked" to someone who hated America so much. You have me at a disadvantage, sir. I'm rather shocked.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

It is sad to think that "at the time it was socially acceptable" is the best excuse that you can muster. You seem to trivialize the act as if to be on par with quitting smoking.

What part of REALITY don't you understand?
Yes, Many disagreed with the practice MAYBE that's why they FREED their slaves.
Hello!

These were not simply unwilling indentured servants. These were sentient human beings treated as sub human in deplorable conditions against their will. I fail to see any honor or fond nostalgia being derived from that.

Nice try.


I can't believe you'll ignore reality in order to try BADLY to twist it into present day political standings.
Let me ask you a question seriously...

How exactly Does acknowledging the truth of that period equate to the present?
We are discussing historical facts. You and many here lamely try to twist it into something it is not.

reply to post by beezzer


Oh please, don't make me laugh

I didn't say the constitution isn't important, but you can't try to solve all current issues with an approach from over 200 years ago!! That's as if the guys who build Bugatti Veyrons were required to use chariot wheels for their cars...

The world back then was very different from what it is today...which means you either ADAPT your strategies, or you will eventually go under.

Also, LOL @ the funny patriot rage

Originally posted by MrXYZ

The world back then was very different from what it is today...which means you either ADAPT your strategies, or you will eventually go under.

So you're agreeing with me about the mind-set being different then.
Oh. I didn't realize you were agreeing with me.

Of course the world is different today. The Founding Fathers didn't have broadband and used a funny font when they printed that "antiquated" document you were refering to.
Tell me, do all progressives think the same way?

Originally posted by SLAYER69
How exactly Does acknowledging the truth of that period equate to the present?
We are discussing historical facts. You and many here lamely try to twist it into something it is not.

Perhaps you should ask Ms Bachmann that question since she chose the topic as the cornerstone of her Tea Party platform.

She is the one who drew the parallels in the context of modern history otherwise we'd not likely be having this discussion.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
The world back then was very different from what it is today...which means you either ADAPT your strategies, or you will eventually go under.

Yeah they adapted alright
I seriously wonder just how knowledgeable you and many others here are about the Democratic party and their rather interesting history with Racial injustices and bigotry? The Democrats have a long and checkered past. Maybe you and many here need to seriously do some hard hitting research on the topic. They didn't keep the best of company...

More of that REALITY!

Ku Klux Klan

In 1870 and 1871 the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes. Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing Republican voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/adaf1414e327.jpg[/atsimg]
A political cartoon depicting the KKK and the Democratic Party as continuations of the Confederacy

In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.[30]

reply to post by SLAYER69


Well honestly Slayer I am a little disappointed in your wholesale character assassination attempt on me. If you can quote me in a single reply to this thread touting my political alliance as being superior to any others I will retract all accusations and refrain from future replies. Truth is you can't.

My posts have all largely focused on the topic as per OP and countered other falsehoods uttered by Ms Bachmann. I presented both factual economic and historical data which soundly refutes her claims.

I have obviously struck a nerve. I still respect your stature on this site regardless of what I perceive to be an all time low and consider you a valued member. I have a few dandy images I could add to counter yours but will refrain out of dignity. We disagree.....period. No need to stoop any further.

Without Wax.....Kinda Kurious

@ Slayer What?????? Wasn't your last reply directed at me? Was it edited???????????

reply to post by kinda kurious


Fair enough I'm headed to the gym.
Remember who started the "Character assassination attempts" Maybe reading the thread again will help clarify who struck Paul first.

This wasn't directed at you personally but if you feel personally offended that isn't my baggage. I've provided facts. If the truth hurts then I apologize.

Oh yeah, one last thing and this MAY flip your noodle...

Both parties have roots in SLAVE owners.
Go figure.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Truthfully, I believe that the Democrats don't have an agenda anymore.

You mean like they're on autopilot? The lights are on but no one is home?

Now THOSE are scary thoughts!

Originally posted by kinda kurious
@ Slayer What?????? Wasn't your last reply directed at me? Was it edited???????????

edit on 28-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)

yes I edited it.

I still had your quote and pasted the wrong one by mistake.
My bad.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Oh yeah, one last thing and this MAY flip your noodle...

Both parties have roots in SLAVE owners.
Go figure.

I know that. The Democrats backed the Dred Scott decision. I am keenly aware of that. (None of my historical data presented was tied to party affiliation.)

...everytime the character of the founding fathers (gag) comes up, it always turns into a debate about them owning slaves... its an old and boring distraction technique that works very well at keeping the focus off of the most damning fact that the ff were pro-genocide, which makes them lower than scum...

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...everytime the character of the founding fathers (gag) comes up, it always turns into a debate about them owning slaves... its an old and boring distraction technique that works very well at keeping the focus off of the most damning fact that the ff were pro-genocide, which makes them lower than scum...

Yeah.

Let's run down the list of atrocities....

Fighting off Imperialistic Europe, Freedom of speech, Freedom of Religion, Separation of Church and State, The Right to bear arms, Freedom of assembly etc etc etc .....

Yup but all of that and more was ruined by them having slaves just like many of the European powers of the period.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Yup but all of that and more was ruined by them having slaves just like many of the European powers of the period.

...they condoned / committed genocide but you ignore that in lieu of making it all about slavery AGAIN...

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Those are also some of the same people who will set up markets to trade in "Carbon Credits" when the MMGW mythology takes hold well enough to make it into law. They are among the fatcats who will benefit from that particular scam.

This is where you lose me. You certainly appear to have a keen and objective mind...but...

The entire argument that there is a sufficient amount of money to be made in Carbon Credit markets...specifically in contrast to the current Fossil Fuels industry...it just seems inane.

I have yet to see any numbers even remotely close...

The whole..."MMGW is a myth perpetrated by wealthy billionairs looking to get rich" just melts away everytime I look to factually examine it.

No when I examine the Koch Brothers and Exxon/Mobile's campaigns to discredit MMAGW I find all meat and records and financial trails...and the risk of being regulated or restrained in thier activity can be easily seen.

"Carbon Credit" barrons in the shadows...?? By what? Trading? ...Add all the commissions on Carbon trading for one year and it still would not equal what the Oil Barrons make in an hour.

I am not getting it...Frankly I think the idea that their are super-wealthy powers that are desperate for Carbon Trading so they can make "Billions" is unsupported even as a theorey.

While financed propaganda of exactly this sort emaniting from Fossil Fuel interests has crossed from theorey into fact.

So what is a reasonable mind to believe? And I do suspect you have a reasonable mind.

Please elaborate with some facts and numbers I can dig my teeth into with reagards to the claim that there is comparable amounts of money to be made in carbon trading as thier is in Fossil Fuels...By what means is this money earned?

reply to post by kinda kurious


My delay in response is because, and although I had read the ruling before, I actually took the time to read Dred Scott v Sandford once again, because if one hopes to be a critical thinker, then one has be quite a bit more than kinda kurious and must be willing to go to the actual source and discern what has been said and why, rather than rely upon an encyclopedia article all too willing to tell you what to think. Further, as Slayer pointed out, and it is my guess he was speaking to the stupid irony that in the context of this thread, where the O.P. has decided that Michelle Bachmann is stupid for asserting the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery, that you have, without a hint of irony, relied so heavily upon a Supreme Court ruling rendered in 1857.

Even further, this reliance on Dred Scott to indict the Founding Fathers necessarily ignores the reality of many Supreme Court rulings, and Dred Scott is most certainly one of them, and that is that not all of the Justices agreed with Chief Justice Taney's decision, and in this case two dissented. While it was only two of nine Justices who dissented in Dred Scott, it was two respected legal scholars who dissented, not two bone headed idiots, but perhaps the most salient point in response to your poorly researched assertion is that Chief Justice Taney relied upon far more than the Constitution for the United States of America in order to reach his conclusion, of which it is doubtful that you even know what that conclusion was.

The main question before the Court was whether or not a person whose ancestors were brought to the United States from Africa as slaves could ever be a citizen. The reason this question was before the Court was because, as Taney explained:

This difference arises, as we have said, from the peculiar character of the Government of the United States. For although it is sovereign and supreme in its appropriate sphere of action, yet it does not possess all the powers which usually belong to the sovereignty of a nation. Certain specified powers, enumerated in the Constitution, have been conferred upon it; and neither the legislative, executive, nor judicial departments of the Government can lawfully exercise any authority beyond the limits marked out by the Constitution. And in regulating the judicial department, the cases in which the courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction are particularly and specifically enumerated and defined; and they are not authorized to take cognizance of any case which does not come within the description therein specified.

What Taney is arguing here is that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to even consider Dred Scott's grievances because Taney and six other Justices didn't view Scott as a citizen of the United States. Now, the argument between KK, and myself - or the question before this court, if you will - is (presumably) whether or not the language of the Constitution condones slavery. It is presumed because of the sleight nature of KK's argument, but it is fairly presumed that KK is arguing that the Constitution does condone slavery and seems content to rely solely upon the Dred Scott ruling to satisfy his contention.

However, Taney's reliance on the Constitution to deny Scott consideration as a citizen, was more the limitations placed on the jurisdiction of the court than anything to do with the "three fifths compromise", and as unlikely as it is, were KK to actually take the time and read Dred Scott v Sandford, he would be hard pressed to find any direct reference to the three fifths compromise. Instead, Taney relied heavily upon prior rulings:

This point was decided in the case of Bingham v. Cabot, (in 3 Dall., 382,) and ever since adhered to by the court. And in Jackson v. Ashton, (8 Pet., 148,) it was held that the objection to which it was open could not be waived by the opposite party, because consent of parties could not give jurisdiction.

Neither Bingham v Cabot nor Jackson v Ashton had anything to do with slavery, and instead were issues of citizenship and matters of jurisdiction respectively. Chief Justice Taney continues:

It is needless to accumulate cases on this subject. Those already referred to, and the cases of Capron v. Van Noorden, (in 2 Cr., 126,) and Montalet v. Murray, (4 Cr., 46,) are sufficient to show the rule of which we have spoken. The case of Capron v. Van Noorden strikingly illustrates the difference between a common-law court and a court of the United States.

While Taney asserts the needlessness of accumulating case law on the matter, he still feels compelled to cite Capron v Van Noorden, which was an issue of whether or not the federal courts will throw out a case on appeal for want of subject matter jurisdiction and the rule established was that the federal courts will throw out for lack of subject matter jurisdiction even if it has already made it to the appellate stage by the time the problem is discovered.

In the matter of Montalet v Murray, I have not had the opportunity to read this ruling and cannot speak intelligently to it, but with the three rulings cited by the Taney Court that I did make the time to read, what is clear is that Taney is relying upon legal precedent to come to his conclusion that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear Scott's grievances. Thus far, in Taney's decision, the contention that slavery is condoned by the Constitution - which was not the issue brought before that Court - has not been addressed. What Taney did address:

This is certainly a very serious question, and one that now for the first time has been brought for decision before this court. But it is brought here by those who have a right to bring it, and it is our duty to meet it and decide it.

The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution.

What follows if finally an instance where Taney does rely upon the Constitution to address the issue:

It will be observed, that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word citizen is used in the Constitution of the United States. And this being the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only, that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country, and sold as slaves.

It should be noted at this point that Taney has not declared Scott to be only "three fifths" of a person and is more concerned with what the Constitution say's in regards to how the word "citizen" is used in the Constitution. Taney continues by comparing "Indians" to slaves, deciding that "Indians" were always people who were free and independent and never at any point slaves, and because of this and according to the Constitution in his view, "Indians" could...

like the subjects of any other foreign Government, be naturalized by the authority of Congress, and become citizens of a State, and of the United States; and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe, and take up his abode among the white population, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people.

I am taking the time to supply these Taney quotes from the Dred Scott ruling to demonstrate that without a doubt Taney - a Southerner who was a fierce advocate of slavery - condoned slavery. I am also taking the time to quote Taney because far beyond diminishing the rights of "negroes...imported to this country, and sold and held as slaves", this Chief Justice diminished the rights of all people everywhere by holding that:

The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.

The irony of this holding, and in the context of your claim that the 14th Amendment "trumped" the Dred Scott ruling, the language of the 14th Amendment, in many ways, echos Taney's sentiments quoted above, the only difference being that the 14th Amendment settled the issue of naturalization and people born on American soil.

While many "civil rights activists" praise the 14th Amendment to no end, and many foolishly rely upon it to assert unalienable rights, where the 13th Amendment prohibited slavery, the 14th Amendment turned around and made slaves of all people born on American soil. The 14th Amendment arrogantly and dubiously grants rights that were all ready in existence prior to the adoption of the Constitution for the United States of America, prior to the Articles of Confederation of Perpetual Union, prior to the Declaration of Independence, and have existed since time immemorial. Congress never had any authority to grant these rights, and the argument that it was necessary to do so in order that persons who were descendants of African born ancestors brought to this nation and sold and held as slaves could have rights is a profound disregard for the actual unalienable rights that were denied these persons and inexcusably disparaged.

The 14th Amendment did not do persons born of African ancestry any favors, nor did it do anyone else any favors, but instead presumed to grant Congress the authority to grant rights, which is clear and willful ignorance of the 9th Amendment.

Taney continues with:

The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate [60 U.S. 393, 405] and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

Here one might construe Taney is referencing the "three fifths" Clause, but it would necessarily have to a construable assumption at best, as Taney does not directly reference the "three fifths" Clause. Continuing, Taney asserts:

It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-making power; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted.

And then follows that reasoning, (sound enough, as the Supreme Court cannot by any means declare the Constitution unconstitutional), with more of his twisted view of rights and how they come to be:

In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union.

Of course, he is not discussing unalienable rights but is instead referring specifically to the "rights" of "citizens", and in that context is clearly comfortable in asserting that the states have the authority to "confer" said "rights". In this legal context, Taney is correct. Citizenship does not preexist the government, and is a privilege conferred upon people in order to participate in the political body formed. However, and this point should not be lost on a single soul, any person, regardless of their nationality or citizenship, has been endowed with certain unalienable rights that do preexist governments. The "rights" of a citizen should never ever be confused with the unalienable rights of people. The 14th Amendment is not concerned with unalienable rights, and instead deigns to confer "rights" to citizens. The greatest problem with this is the possibility - indeed the probability - of creating an inequality under the law.

For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States.

Read Taney's word's carefully and take note how careful he is to use the word citizen, but be aware how this word citizen has been construed to mean that only citizens of the United States may rely upon the Bill of Rights as protection from the federal government. People do not make this assumption today because of what was ruled in Dred Scott, people make this assumption today because of what they were taught in civic courses in - mostly public - schools. People assume that just because the got the answer marked as correct on a test, that it must be true that only citizens of the United States have rights within the United States. Not all people think this, and there have been plenty of people who were wise enough to answer the question on the test the way their professor expected it to be answered, but never fell prey to the odious indoctrination being shoved down their throat, but those people are critical thinkers, not lazy thinkers who believe that memorization of data is learning and that citing a single paragraph from an online encyclopedia is more than enough support of an argument.

The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the [60 U.S. 393, 406] rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.

Here Taney finally gets to the part of the Constitution he is referring to, and it has nothing to do with the "three fifths" Clause and instead is in regards to Congress authority to naturalize people as citizens of the United States, an authority the Taney Court recognizes existed before their ruling, and clearly before the 14th Amendment was adopted, but again, and this cannot be emphasized enough, that what Taney is arguing is largely echoed by the 14th Amendment.

Taney later addresses the question brought before the Court by himself asking:

The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent? Does the Constitution of the United States act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a State, and raised there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in every other State, and in its own courts?

Again, it is important to understand that Taney has all ready argued that it is citizens who are entitled to access to the Court for protection of their rights, and in doing so Taney has not just diminished the rights of "negroes" but has diminished the rights of all people, insisting that only citizens are entitled to protection of rights. The 14th Amendment does not "trump" that problem at all.

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States. And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State [60 U.S. 393, 407] which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.

The 14th Amendment did nothing to "trump" this holding either. While the O.P. wants to rely upon silly little emoticons to laugh at Bachmann for her assertion that our Founding Fathers worked towards ending slavery, Taney did not have silly little emoticons, (laughing or otherwise), to rely upon and so he instead relied upon the long history of slavery:

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.

And follows with:

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.

And follows that with:

And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed or more [60 U.S. 393, 408] uniformly acted upon than by the English Government and English people. They not only seized them on the coast of Africa, and sold them or held them in slavery for their own use; but they took them as ordinary articles of merchandise to every country where they could make a profit on them, and were far more extensively engaged in this commerce than any other nation in the world.

Following that with:

The opinion thus entertained and acted upon in England was naturally impressed upon the colonies they founded on this side of the Atlantic. And, accordingly, a negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property, and held, and bought and sold as such, in every one of the thirteen colonies which united in the Declaration of Independence, and afterwards formed the Constitution of the United States. The slaves were more or less numerous in the different colonies, as slave labor was found more or less profitable. But no one seems to have doubted the correctness of the prevailing opinion of the time.

Rather than continue citing Taney's tedious reasoning, suffice it to say, and certainly by all that was cited, that he did not cite the three fifths Clause for this reasoning, but instead a long history of European attitudes towards "negroes" brought to this nation and held as slaves.

I do not harbor any illusions that you will actually take the time to read the Dred Scott ruling in its entirety, and remain skeptical that you would even be bothered to read what I cited, but it remains a given that if one wants to know the truth of a matter then one must necessarily look at all angles of the truth instead of myopically viewing only those angles that support ones argument.

The efforts I have taken in citing the Dred Scott ruling, and this should be clear to anyone paying attention, is not to defend Taney's odious opinion, but to demonstrate that reliance on Wikipedia for information, while it can serve as an excellent spring board into actual research, is not at all a way to become informed.

It is also worth reminding you that two of the Justices who sat on the Taney bench for the Dred Scott ruling dissented and held their own arguments as to why Taney was wrong. While citing case law makes for a very dry and tedious post, demanding those courteous enough to read such a post, read much, I am compelled to cite some of this dissent.

Justice McLean argued:

Being born under our Constitution and laws, no naturalization is required, as one of foreign birth, to make him a citizen. The most general and appropriate definition of the term citizen is 'a freeman.' Being a freeman, and having his domicil in a State different from that of the defendant, he is a citizen within the act of Congress, and the courts of the Union are open to him.

Slavery is emphatically a State institution. In the ninth section of the first article of the Constitution, it is provided 'that the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.'

The provision in regard to the slave trade shows clearly that Congress considered slavery a State institution, to be continued and regulated by its individual sovereignty; and to conciliate that interest, the slave trade was continued twenty years, not as a general measure, but for the 'benefit of such States as shall think proper to encourage it.'

The only connection which the Federal Government holds with slaves in a State, arises from that provision of the Constitution which declares that 'No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.'

In the formation of the Federal Constitution, care was taken to confer no power on the Federal Government to interfere with this institution in the States. In the provision respecting the slave trade, in fixing the ratio of representation, and providing for the reclamation of fugitives from labor, slaves were referred to as persons, and in no other respect are they considered in the Constitution.

We need not refer to the mercenary spirit which introduced the infamous traffic in slaves, to show the degradation of negro slavery in our country. This system was imposed upon our colonial settlements by the mother country, and it is due to truth to say that the commercial colonies and States were chiefly engaged in the traffic. But we know as a historical fact, that James Madison, that great and good man, a leading member in the Federal Convention, was solicitous to guard the language of that instrument so as not to convey the idea that there could be property in man.

I prefer the lights of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, as a means of construing the Constitution in all its bearings, rather than to look behind that period, into a traffic which is now declared to be piracy, and punished with death by Christian nations. I do not like to draw the sources of our domestic relations from so dark a ground. Our independence was a great epoch in the history of freedom; and while I admit the Government was not made expecially for the colored race, yet many of them were citizens of the New England States, and exercised, the rights of suffrage when the Constitution was adopted, and it was not doubted by any intelligent person that its tendencies would greatly ameliorate their condition.

With all due respect to Justice Curtis and his noble dissent, I will end with the last citation from McLean's dissent, and would ask that if you read nothing else of my post, if you read nothing at all from the Dred Scott ruling, that you take the time to read those words directly above these words and consider them with genuine regard "...it was not doubted by any intelligent person that its tendencies would greatly ameliorate their condition"

With that I have left the noble Slayer alone in the trenches for too long while I have hidden behind the comfort of academic pursuit on this matter. So, I will post this now and can only hope this give Slayer some relief in his own efforts to defend Founders worthy of defense.