Talk:Dred Scott v. Sandford/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Vandalism

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I just restored the case section, but there are still references to "Chris Rules" scattered throughout. Can somebody with more WikiFu than I please fix these (revert the idiots)? 69.162.59.13 19:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not that person, but I inadvertently deleted some data at the bottom. I was copying some text and flat out screwed up. I am sorry for any problem this might have caused.

Not to worry, that's why Wikipedia backs up every editing iteration Gautam ^Discuss 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I just found a couple recent edits that appear to be vandalism, changing "Sanford/Sandford" to "Alfonso". Editing back. 151.151.16.22 (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Dred Scott and judicial activism

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Unless I'm wrong, Bush was actually wrong about the case being an example of judicial activism. According to section 2, clause 3 of the Constitution:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

While there is no mention of the actual word "slavery," there is no doubt who those "other persons" who get three fifths of a vote are. If that's true, that deserves some mention.--B5d 18:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The last three paragraphs of "Judicial Appointments" are illogical (if not POV-based) and should probably be revised or removed -- especially the last sentence, which claims that because the justices in the Dred Scott case were not distinctly reinterpreting the Constitution as it stood at that time, slavery is thus a "powerful argument for judicial activism." The conclusion doesn't follow at all. Judicial activism in this case would have come down for slavery, not against it; and it wasn't by any means judicial activism that ended U.S. slavery; it was the 1865 amendment.

Also, the first sentence stating that the "implied larger point, that the constitution disallows slavery in general, is false" is itself a mischaracterization. The Constitution at that time neither allowed nor disallowed slavery, unless noting the existence of slavery can be considered expressly permitting it. Counting people by three-fifths, a compromise between slave and free states, should not be construed as Constitutional support of slavery (and enough people thought that it should be disallowed that a civil war was fought and won over the point). Since slavery is not explicitly allowed, therefore, an observer who says "The Constitution does not allow slavery, except perhaps in somebody's personal opinion," has not spoken a falsehood, as this sentence says they have.

At any rate, the comparison with Roe v. Wade is not imprecise at all on socio-cultural grounds, since the questions of slavery then and abortion now are both morally controversial and divisive ones that weren't definitely explained by the original Constitution. (Bravo-Alpha 08:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

Use of word "negroes"

I'm not sure I agree with the following phrasing: "No Negroes, not even free Negroes, could ever become citizens of the United States." It seems to me to be correct to use non-preferred terms (such as Negro) in direct quotations, but not outside. Novalis 08:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, a direct quote would be much better. I did a quick browse through the verdict, and I can confirm that this is definitely an accurate statement, but I did not find a suitable short sentence. Perhaps you can have a look. Sander123 14:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sanford or Sandford?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is it Sanford or Sandford? (see second paragraph) -- Stw 23:39, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good question. On the website of the supreme court, they refer to it as: "Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857)"

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/casefinder/casefinder_1790-1862.html

User:sander123 8 march 2004

Officially, the case is definitely "Scott v. Sandford," though the respondent was John Sanford. There was a clerical error. I don't think we should correct the error: firstly, the courts never bothered to do so, and secondly, "Sandford" is the spelling that is properly used in legal documents, etc. -- Emsworth 15:40, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Leave it "Sandford." There was indeed a clerical error, but in legal writing it will always be cited with the spelling "Sandford." Making a note of this interesting trivial aspect of the case in the article would likely be wise.

Who would have the authority to correct this typo? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, is it really necessary to cite so extensively from the opinions? Woudn't it be better to have a discussion of its contents, with a few short well chosen cites? User:sander123 8 march 2004

It doesn't look good to just bounce back and forth between Sanford and Sandford. It looks like a hack job even though there appears to be a sound historical reason for the two spellings. The reason for the different spellings should be added to the text so the readers don't think the article was written by a trogolyte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabelBoy (talk • contribs) 04:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary reference

I see there is an external link available, but I think it would be beneficial to include a paragraph or two explaining how the Dred Scott Case is currently being used by Pro-Life advocates, considering the President went so far as to mention Dred Scott during one of the debates. --Feitclub 16:32, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Personal outcome for Dred Scott

Reading the article as a disinterested and uninformed observer, the eventual outcome for Dred Scott is left as a loose end.

Various websites located by a Google search on Dredd Scott turned up these details:-

"Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free. Dred Scott died nine months later."

"Mrs. Emerson remarries. Since her new husband opposes slavery, she returns Dred Scott and his family to the Blow family. The Blows give the Scotts their freedom."

NPOV is hard to obtain here. I presume from the two quotes that Mrs Emerson sold her interest in the Scott family to the Blow family, who manumitted them. Unclear if this was an act of generosity on the part of Emerson, or simple disposal of an unwanted asset. Two children were also mentioned. Did the Scott's manumission extend to them as well? Any further background to clarify this?

Shokaman

Kansas-Nebraska Act?

In this article, the Kansas Nebraska Act is included as one of the consequences of the decision. I don't think it should be included under consequences because that could be very confusing, since it did happen before all of this.

jazmine

Judicial appointments

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some comments about the section titled "Judicial Appointments":

The first paragraph in that section mentions two similarities, a "specific" similarity and a "general" similarity, between Dred Scott v. Sandford and Roe v. Wade. Another "specific" similarity, not mentioned, is that both decisions relied on the doctrine of substantive due process. SDP according to conservative legal scholars represents an erroneously broad interpretation of the due process clauses in the 5th and 14th Amendments.

And, another "general" similarity, not mentioned, is that in both decisions, the Supreme Court aimed to settle a national controversy (slavery in Dred Scott, abortion in Roe), with the unintended result that the debate became even more contentious--culminating in the Civil War after Dred Scott and the politicization of federal judicial appointments after Roe.

About the second paragraph: The analogy between Dred Scott and Roe was not "esoteric", as this paragraph claims, before the 2nd presidential debate of 2004. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Penn. v. Casey (1992), which upheld Roe, Justice Scalia made this comparison:

>> ...Dred Scott...rested upon the concept of "substantive due process" that the Court praises and employs today. Indeed, Dred Scott was very possibly the first application of substantive due process in the Supreme Court, the original precedent for...Roe v. Wade.<<

Justice Scalia goes on to compare the false expectation by President Buchanan that the Dred Scott decision would settle the issue of slavery, with the false hope of the Roe court that that decision would settle the issue of abortion.

I would move to remove the Judicial Appointments section from the article entirely. The reasoning being that if does not speak about the Dred Scott case itself, but rather how this case is affecting a different issue, namly the current abortion debate. Secondly, the section is growing to an unwieldy size for such a sub point to the entry. Third, I have grave concerns about maintaining a NPOV on the subject. My research shows that this connection is greatly used by the pro-life crowd and virtually ignored by the pro-choice crowd. After several hours of searching for references from the pro-choice crowd, I have located some, but it is clear that this is a favorite allegory of one side of the debate and clearly not paid attention to by the other. Given the massive discrepancy, maintaining a NPOV is difficult.

However, I have tried. I've edited the pro-life argument, changing the wording from "unjustly removed constitutional protections" to "asserted the lack of constitutional protections" and changed "illegitimate meddling" to "unnecessary interferance" in a effort to bring these arguments closer to a NPOV. I've also, instead of removing the pro-life arguments, added pro-choice viewpoints and cited references for those viewpoints into the section.

I believe that this whole section should be simply removed from the article and moved into it's own article, if kept at all. But failing that, we should strive to present both sides of the debate in as close to a NPOV as possible. --Don Sowell 23:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Players and the Arguments section

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The chronology is off . . . 64.12.117.11 15:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Notice About the Free States in Intro

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Scott was taken to Illinois and Wisconsin not Illinois and Indiana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindude (talk • contribs) 20:12, July 7, 2006

Do you have a citation for that? Wikibofh_(talk) 20:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Illinois, Wisconsin and Iowa are correct, according to Wilentz. The case, however, was based only on the residence in Illinois and Wisconsin. DMorpheus 14:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm in the middle of doing some serious editing on the article. There are some major problems, including the fact that the first sentence as it now stands simply isn't true (in fact, the fugitive slave laws which were in effect were the exact opposite of what the first sentence suggests was the law), and that the organization is a mess compared to other Supreme Court Case articles.-Polo tet 03:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I will be interested to see what you post. I won't get in a revert war while you sort it out. The important facts I want to convey is the context/motivation (e.g., Bleeding Kansas) and avoiding the leap that it caused the American Civil War and resulted in a constitutional ammendment freeing of slaves. As mentioned in my previous comments, I'm amazed this somehow worked its way into featured article with those significant POV issues. Growing up in Missouri the textbook was always that it reversed the Missouri Compromise. It's more complex than that and I look forward to seeing your changes. The opening sentence though should be in English rather than Legalese. Americasroof 03:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done the best I can to improve the accuracy and the flow of the article, though it certainly still isn't perfect. I've tried to bring the intro more in line with other well-written Supreme Court Case articles. I'd be happy to discuss any specific changes I made here. Thanks!-Polo tet 04:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice job! I don't think I will tinker significantly anymore with this. I've been writing a lot about the Missouri in the Civil War and the nuance I wanted to make sure got caught was that the Dred Scott decision occurred at a time when a shooting war between Missouri and Kansas had in fact started in Bleeding Kansas. Missouri was hoping that it could avoid war by maintaining the status quo. The decision (which even the Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice dissented) marked judicial activism to quiet the Bleeding Kansas conflict. It of course had other impacts. Anyway nice job and in further rewrites I would hope that motivations for the judicial activism are described. Americasroof 11:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Title vs. Header

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

While I understand why the title of the article and the header (or whatever you call the first instance of its name that appears in bold at the beginning of the article) are different, I'm not sure that it's the right way to go about things. The case should probably always be referred to as it appears in official records, with Sandford, and an explanatory note can be attached to the first instance in the article where one of the members of the Sanford family is referred to.-Polo tet 04:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your approach. The Supreme Court case finder lists the case as Dred Scott v. Sandford [1] and so the infobox and beginning references should agree with that. --MZMcBride 23:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Antislavery verdict

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Perhaps if the Supreme Court ruled, in 1857, that Dred Scott, since he lived in a free territory, was free, that slaves were real human beings and not property (all property is made of metal), and that Congress could prohibit slavey in the territories (Congress can make all necessary and proper laws), how would the nation have reacted?

An interesting question, but I have to take issue with "all property is made of metal." Might want to do some fact-checking on that. Anyway, it's not clear whether this would have prevented or otherwise altered the War or not... -- 192.154.63.19 14:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Power over territories

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A quick note to explain the edit I'm about to make. The article says that the Dred Scott decision ruled "that Congress had no authority to create and administer territories," and that "territories [were] unconstitutional." I do not think this is right. The decision expressly says that Congress can acquire lands and organize territorial governments over those lands. 60 U.S. 393, 448-49. However, the court said that there are limits on that power, one of which is that Congress may not deprive people of their property, including slaves. Id. at 450-52. So I am editing the article accordingly. --Theleek 19:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Slavery in the Constitution

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What might be missing in this discussion, and the article itself, is mention of the primary references in the Constitution to slavery. In his comment about "judicial activism" discussed above, Bush was either stupid enough – or was hoping we were stupid enough – to believe there is nothing about slavery in the constitution. That is what my kids were taught as school, and they were given expurgated copies of the Constitution to prove it. Of course, if you do a word search, there isn't. But in reality, here they are. (Their effects are all now nullified by subsequent amendments.)

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 (the "three-fifths clause"), which gave states representation in Congress based on their free population and 60 percent of their slaves:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

"All other persons" refers to slaves.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 (the "migration and importation" or "slave trade" clause) prohibited Congress from ending the African slave trade before 1808:

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 one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

"The importation of persons" refers to the slave trade. Although the international slave trade was banned in 1808, the ban was only half-heartedly enforced and a thriving interstate slave trade remained until the 1860s.

The Supreme Court in the Scott case wrote:

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.'

In the Convention, it was proposed by a committee of eleven to limit the importation of slaves to the year 1800, when Mr. Pinckney moved to extend the time to the year 1808. This motion was carried-New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South carolina, and Georgia, voting in the affirmative; and New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, in the negative. In opposition to the motion, Mr. Madison said: 'Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves; so long a term will be more dishonorable to the American character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.' ( Madison Papers.)

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.'

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 ("fugitives from labor" or "runaway slaves" clause) provided for the return of runaway slaves, irrespective of which state they were captured in, slave or free:

No Person held to Service or Labour 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 Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

The Scott decision said:

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.'

This being a fundamental law of the Federal Government, it rests mainly for its execution, as has been held, on the judicial power of the Union; and so far as the rendition of fugitives from labor has become a subject of judicial action, the Federal obligation has been faithfully discharged.

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.

Article V (amendment provisions) protected the other slave provisions of the constitution from amendment.:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The Scott decision went on at some length. I've tried to address just those issues where the constitution clearly acknowledged, and approved of, slavery. - Kjb 04:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is my first time to do anything but read Wikipedia, so I'll just try adding a comment (I hope in the right spot???). I think there's a major error in this great article. Specifiicaly, the page states that the court found that people of African descent could not become citizens. I don't think that was the case. I know the Columbia encyclopedia says otherwise at http://www.bartleby.com/65/dr/DredScot.html Will someone who is more expert with Wikipedia and who would know what source to cite confirm and fix this. I'll watch and get a little smarter, so I can help more directly in the future. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimThompsonSr (talk • contribs) 21:14, 2 September 2007

Welcome! I'll check it out over the next few days. Phyesalis 06:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and Historical impact assessment

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This section has some issues. There is one sentence and it's not sourced. The title of the section implies that one man's article/book constitutes an historical impact assessment. I'm thinking hia is a fairly technical term to apply to what may or may not be some justice's off-hand comment. The section should be expanded to contain some context and some good citations and then renamed, or the single unreferenced statement should be deleted. Any thoughts? Phyesalis 06:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Anachronist reference to the 14th Amendment

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Conservative legal scholars note further that both decisions relied on substantive due process—a doctrine which to its critics represents a broad view of certain Constitutional provisions and a power grab by the judiciary. Under this doctrine, the "life, liberty, or property" clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are interpreted to give the courts the authority to strike down laws that constitute an "undue" deprivation of "life, liberty, or property." Roe's central holding that abortion is constitutionally protected was eventually (in 1992) cast as among the aforementioned "libert[ies]", and the slave Dred Scott was constitutionally protected "property" according to the Dred Scott v. Sandford majority.^{[citation needed]}

Critics of this claim point out that ruling was made by the same type of strict interpretation of the Constitution that would be necessary to overturn Roe v. Wade. In their ruling, the Supreme Court justices focused on the fact that the Constitution allowed slavery and that the framers did not intend to extend the right of citizenship to slaves. For this to change, an amendment to the Constitution would, therefore, be required. This view was borne out with the passing of the 13th and 14th amendments.^{[citation needed]}

I deleted thes first of these two paragraphs because it makes not sense to say that the Dredd Scott decision was based on an interpretation of the 14th amendment. I deleted the second because without the first paragraph, it would make no sense to discuss its contents. If people really want to have a discussion of substantive due process, they should write one up that does not make reference to the 14th Amendment.Heqwm (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Block anonymous editing to fight vandalism?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Seems to be a lot of vandalism and reverts. Would it be best to increase the signal to noise ratio by preventing anonymous edits to this page? Red Harvest (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade

Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

The following paragraph has all sorts of problems:

The Dred Scott decision is often said to have been "overturned" or recognized as being "wrong". However, the core determination of the Dred Scott decision — that the Constitution, as it existed at the time of the decision, did not recognize blacks as citizens — is entirely correct, and was not "overturned"; with the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments, the issue of what the Constitution at the time of the Dred Scott said became a moot point. What changed was not the interpretation of the Constitution, but the Constitution itself. Thus, the comparison between Roe v Wade and Dred Scott would be valid only if a Constitutional Amendment, rather than Conservative attempts to induce the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, were at issue.

Problems are:

No references or citations. Uses generalities that frame a strawman argument.
Very POV'ish, and tone is not at all encyclopedic. ("is often said", "is entirely correct")
The Constitution prior to the 14th Amendment left citizenship to the States. It referred to "free Persons" but did not declare that those of other races were not free. It did not for instance say "free White Persons." Quoting from Article I, Section 2: "free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
The court altered the interpretation of the Constitution to claim that States could not recognize certain races as full citizens with respect to the United States. Yet citizenship arose not from the Nation, but from the States until the 14th Amendment. The Court claimed that blacks could not be recognized as U.S. citizens. However, the Constitution was mum about that.
Dissenting opinion argued that states had at times recognized freed slaves as citizens. That would remove those particular people from the "property" pool forever.

I believe it would be best to scrap the whole paragraph unless someone can find a credible way of rehabilitating it.Red Harvest (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right Red Harvest. I tried to fix this paragraph. I deleted the historically inaccurate assertion that the Constitution "at the time of the decision did not recognize blacks as citizens." At ratification only three states prohibited black men from voting. Black voters participated in ratification. This made them citizens of the United States. These rights were gradually taken away, state by state, but if one is going to argue over "what the constitution said" at the time of Dred Scott, there is plenty of evidence that it recognized Black citizenship because of free Black electoral participation in the 1790s. That said, the idea that Dred Scott was solved by Constitutional Amendments remains correct, though haven't those who disagree with Roe v Wade tried to use the 14th amendment as a lever to overturn that judgment? This book has a lot on contested citizenship, the right to vote:

www.amazon.com/Right-Vote-Contested-History-Democracy/dp/0465029698

Guavas (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I cleaned up the last bit of unsupportable POV in the initial sentence as well and reworded to a neutral POV that still contains the kernel that was true. Red Harvest (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have gone nearly far enough with this. The catalog of three cases that allegedly echo Dred Scott, or remind people of it, or whatever — this is all NPOV and the whole section needs to be deleted. Unborn fetuses are just like slaves, and it's inexorable that one day they will have rights as persons! Captured terrorists are just like slaves, and it's inexorable that one day they will get their day in court! Likening your favorite pet court case to Dred Scott is begging the question, it's a logically specious attempt at making your side seem morally in the right; and such comparisons definitely belong on the articles about those separate decisions — emphatically, not here. Tempshill (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all 3. The article is now better. Tempshill (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That is NOT the right way to go about it! Trashing that much of others' content because of one's own POV and without discussion is not the way to achieve concensus. Red Harvest (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that WP:TOPIC is relevant here. It reads:

“The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it. Due to the way in which Wikipedia has grown, many articles contain such redundant texts. Please be bold in deleting them.”

The events of the Dred Scott decision occurred in the middle of the 19th Century. Since it was a Supreme Court decision, it would certainly be relevant to include in the article how the Supreme Court has subsequently cited it as a legal precedent. What is NOT RELEVANT is the use of the alleged moral lessons of the decision by 21st Century politicians and interest groups.

The entire section “Dred Scott and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld” should be eliminated -- there is no indication that the courts based their decision on the Dred Scott decision. The only source for the section is a news article from an Australian website, and the only reference to Dred Scott in the article is the headline. The reference does not support the sweeping claim in the single sentence that it refers to and the balance is entirely unsourced.

The entire section “Bailey v. Alabama” is totally unsourced. Who exactly, other than a Wikipedia editor, has argued that “Bailey v. Alabama (1908) is regarded as being the most important case of its kind after the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision”? The balance of the article makes it clear that the decision was based on the 13th Amendment, not the Dred Scott decision.

As far as the Roe. v Wade reference, I believe that the following is relevant, since it refers to Supreme Court Justices using Dred Scott as a judicial precedent in a judicial decision, and should be included:

“In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)—which upheld Roe's central holding that abortion is constitutionally protected—Justice Scalia, joined by three other justices who wanted to reverse Roe, made this comparison to Dred Scott: [D]red Scott...rested upon the concept of "substantive due process" that the Court praises and employs today. Indeed, Dred Scott was very possibly the first application of substantive due process in the Supreme Court, the original precedent for...Roe v. Wade.”

Everything else in the section, much of it undocumented, is simply about 21st Century politics and should be eliminated. I believe that the deletion was appropriate, and Tempshill provided a rationale as to why it was deleted. It is not clear to me whether you are defending the inclusion of all of the material you added back or whether you are simply talking about process. Speaking strictly about the process aspects, unsourced material can be removed at any time without discussion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The process is important. I'm not defending the content itself. (My suggestion would be to make it some sort of sub-page--including the Roe v. Wade.) There has been some discussion about these sections and active editing to them. Simply deleting everything without discussion is not bold but downright uncivil. I could use "unsourced material can be removed at any time without discussion" to eradicate many useful sections of wikipedia whether or not I agree with them. If fact if I left only the sourced portions of this article there would be little left because while we have notes, we don't have references tying them to much of the text.

Being bold in destroying other's work without discussion is hardly what the guidelines intend and is in fact contradicted by other warnings against that sort of activity. My understanding is that the first response is to ask for references or discuss the relevance rather than "nuking" it unilaterally because someone doesn't "hang around a lot lately" as Tempshill put it in response to me. Red Harvest (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Tempshill deleted the material and explained why he felt the material should go. I have explained in more detail why I feel the material should go. You or someone else needs to explain why the material should stay. I would hope whoever does respond addresses the actual points I raised.

There are any number of articles on current events where you can place the material if you feel strongly about it. The articles on Roe v. Wade (rated FA) and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (rated GA) have absolutely no references to Dred Scott -- put the material there if you want. I doubt a separate article on it is warranted, but I'll leave that up to you and the folks that monitor new articles. I'm not sure why we need to keep the material here until you a decision is reached on where else to locate it. You can copy it on to the discussion page if you like so others can discuss it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The section has a "needs expansion" tag on it. Tempshill instead completely gutted it without any prior discussion, including a section you are stating IS relevant. So I'm not sure what the argument is. Red Harvest (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a tag from March 2007 is relevant. Whoever posted it is certainly welcome to defend it now. You keep harping on the lack of discussion, yet you avoid actually discussing the issues that both Tempshill and I have raised. I did explain MY POSITION on why one paragraph should be retained -- I am awaiting your explanation on why the other 14 paragraphs should be retained -- I've provided my reasons why they are irrelevant. Whether or not Tempshill's edit was the absolutely rudest thing every committed on Wikipedia, it has absolutely nothing to do with the SUBSTANCE of the article. Absent anybody defending the inclusion of the material, it should be deleted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the tone of the arguments presented by both of you seem to be based on strong POV issues as well, I find myself in the odd position of opposing removal until others have had a chance to defend it. And that was my point from the start. Red Harvest (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Keeping the discussion of 21st Century political arguments out of articles about events in the mid 19th Century is a POV? Since there is no discussion being offered on the substantive reasons given for removing the irrelevant and undocumented material, I am restoring Tempshill's edit -- waiting because someone might later object serves no purpose nor is it wikipedia policy. Boldly eliminating irrelevant material is policy. To repeat from WP:TOPIC:

“The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it. Due to the way in which Wikipedia has grown, many articles contain such redundant texts. Please be bold in deleting them.” Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. As far as expanding the section, the final chapter in the Fehrenbacher book listed in the notes discusses the application of some aspects of the Dred Scott decision in subsequent decisions. I've added the Plessy v. Ferguson cite and will be adding others regarding dual citizenship, Congressional authority in the territories, judicial review, and other areas. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And of course you both seem to have skipped the next paragraph of WP:BOLD that says … but don't be reckless. Red Harvest (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You leave out the pattern that this section suggests -- "BOLD, revert, discuss." I have tried to engage you in a discussion, but you simply won't participate. Unfounded charges of POV and dwelling on the first step of BOLD is not discussion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I explained my position many times over. It was the tactics that were used that I call into question and BOLD is a very poor defense for the attitude displayed which is both bold and RECKLESS (as well as overtly aggressive and dismissive and just about guarranteed to provoke.) When you succeed in turning someone otherwise supportive of the edits against them, and give strong indications of personal POV issues as you both have demonstrated as well, then you might want to reconsider tactics. The same end could have been acheived without any dissent on my part. Red Harvest (talk) 00:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention it assumes there are no pro-life liberals. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Much of this page is identical to this page: http://carolana.com/SC/1800s/antebellum/dred_scott_decision.html

Is the wikipedia page plagiarized? Or that one? 15:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesterburnette (talk • contribs)

Probably that one. I've looked through the article's history, and the text that's duplicated on that site was arrived at gradually, not added in one big chunk. [2][3] -- Vary | Talk 15:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It appears that the wikipedia page was "one-source cited" from the page you mentioned. If the website is included in the references, however, is there a problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Operative51 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Slaughter house cases

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Regarding this edit, it seems like it may be original research to me. I'm not questioning the conclusion - I'm not a lawyer - but shouldn't we have a reference that states what's being said? Otherwise it looks like a legal conclusion is being drawn directly from the text of the case, which is probably inappropriate. Frank | talk 11:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Consequences

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Consequences section is messed up. This sentence does not make logical sense "The expansion of the territories and resulting admission of new states meant that the longstanding Missouri Compromise would cause the loss of political power in the North as many of the new states would be admitted as slave states." It seems that someone has written the Consequences section with a POV that is highly pro-southern. Many of the statements fly in the face of historian consensus. Like other parts of the article, there are no references. --Westwind273 (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

One of the external links, Commemorative Events at Jefferson National Expansion Memorial for the 150th Anniversary of Dred Scott v. Sandford, seems to be linking to an explicit website for me. Can someone please verify this? -- 76.103.241.42 00:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed the link. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Related Court Rulings and Acts of Congress

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The legislation in several states weakening the power to return escaped slaves in, and the Prigg v. Pennsylvania weakening of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 triggered the compromise in which Congress passed Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. This was in effect a rebuke of the various court's activism, if we use today's language. In 1859 the court sustained the new act, contrary to its earlier Prigg decision in Ableman v. Booth. I don't have anything explicitly that links Dred to them, but given scotus twice ruling on the Fugitive Slave laws, and the various acts of Congress strengthening slavery, it seems to me that Dred is more like Roe deciding abortion could/should be restricted; Dred maintained he status quo of slavery while Roe changed the status quo restrictions on abortion. (One could argue that Taney should have reasoned that Dred in failing to exert his freedom before returning as a slave to the slave state of Missouri gave up his opportunity, like Lilly Ledbetter did by not acting sooner;-).) In any case, I suggest these facts might make the suggested political influence of Buckannan merely a part of the view that the court was too liberal prior to its Dred decision.Mulp (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think using modern concepts such as "activism" or "too liberal" really help much in understanding the case. The political divisions regarding the decision fall fairly neatly into pro-slavery and free soil positions. Rather than reversing a trend, Buchanan, Taney, and the Dred Scott decision were probably the last vestiges of a period when the South dominated all three branches of the federal government. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandford

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone know the name of the person who corrected Sandford to Sanford? When did this correction arrive? Bobkrauss (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Bob Krauss

The history of topic shows the information was added by User:Lord Emsworth June 21, 2004. Tedickey (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Unclear?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor left the following message in the article, in the section titled Scott v. Emerson:

At the end of 1847, the judge granted Scott a new trial. Emerson appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Missouri, who affirmed the trial court's order in 1848. [This statement in unclear because it is out of a proper time sequence, please clarify. CFA]

Does anybody else think this is unclear? Can somebody address this concern? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Boston Commons?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The traditional version of the story was that Georgia Senator Robert Toombs boasted that he would one day call the roll of his slaves on the Bunker Hill revolutionary war battlefield (slightly north of Boston). There's some dispute over whether he said those words, but a lot of people in the mid-1850's thought that he had... See New York Times of September 27, 1856 (rather skeptical about the denial), etc. AnonMoos (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

1856 or 1857?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The source in the Introduction has the decision being handed down in 1856, but the article consistently refers to the decision coming in 1857. Either the source needs to be replaced or the article needs to be corrected. SMP0328. (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the infobox, the case was "Argued February 11–14, 1856; Reargued December 15–18, 1856; Decided March 6, 1857". That information is confirmed here and, by the Supreme Court itself, here (PDF file, page 68). Which source says the decision was handed down in 1856? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The first external link in the Introduction; click "393". SMP0328. (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Worst Decision

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Many people consider the Dred Scott Decision to be one of the worst decisions that the Supreme Court ever made. Should this be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexGu100 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS - sourced to well-known historians for example. TEDickey (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Consequences - Notes on Banking

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the section "Consequences" a distinction is made between branch banking and unit banking as an explanation of the different reactions to events. Obviously this is not pertinent to this article, but can someone who understands this link too somewhere that can explain this. Thanks --Yendor1958 (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Background

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The "Background" section currently starts:

Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia between 1795 and 1800. In 1820, he followed his owners--Peter Blow--to Missouri.

So did is the name of at least one other owner missing from the parenthesis, or should it instead read "his owner"? Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC).

Opinions in the text

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

First paragraph... "worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court." I resent the use of wikipedia to arbitrate opinion under the pretense of encyclopedic information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.26 (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Out of Africa hypothesis and Dred Scott decision

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Interestingly enough, if one considers the Out of Africa theory, had the Dred Scott decision stayed put, the USA might've wound up with no citizens, apparently. Obviously, someone would've had to correct for this evolutionary finding before long. 198.151.130.57 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of opening paragraph

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"but retains historical significance as perhaps the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court"

That states an opinion, and it states that opinion as if it was a fact. Most people in the western world, Myself included, find racism and slavery appalling. I simply believe that we should reword the sentence to something more like; "but retains historical significance as what many believe may be the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court" or something similar perhaps. Just for neutrality sakes. We should attempt to maintain a NPOV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristanjay (talk • contribs) 14:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is absolutely compromised by the statement (however true individuals such as myself believe it to be). Moreover, the cited article does not use the word "worst" to describe the decision. However, it does describe the decision with the phrases, "reputation as a 'bad'decision," and, "unquestionable the most controversial decision in Supreme Court history," without citation or proof, compromising the neutrality of the cited article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.180.93 (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

POV in opening pargraph

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This unsourced sentence in the opening reeks of unsubstantiated POV (and is very naive to say it caused the Civil War). It compromises the whole article. Since this is a well written article, it should not be sabotaged so early on with a sentence that is flame bait.

It is considered by many to have been a key cause of the American Civil War, and of the later ratification of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, leading to the abolition of slavery and establishment of civil rights for freed slaves.

Americasroof 11:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the above, which has since been edited, but I also would like to mention that the same bias exists in the last sentence of this paragraph.

The reasoning used in the "Slaughter-House Cases" is extremely sound considering the fact that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were written with the intention of overturning the Dred Scott decision.

The first part evidently lacks neutrality; the last part probably makes a conclusion that is a bit uncalled for -- as though this was the only or principal reason for the amendments. Finally, there is no reference for the statement.CallidusUlixes (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't check the talk page before making my edit a few minutes ago: I excised this part:

"The court’s decision was so contentious that some ^[who?] go as far as to suggest that the Dred Scott decision caused the Civil War. Although such an assertion is rejected by most legal and historical scholars, it is nevertheless acknowledged that"

The Finkelman reference paper (ref# 4), one of the most-cited references in the article(kinda, sorta) opens with this:

While the case’s holding and doctrine are no longer jurisprudentially important, its historical and cultural impact can hardly be overestimated. Though surely an exaggeration, it has been said that the case caused the Civil War. While other forces caused secession and the War, Dred Scott surely played a role in the timing of both. After the War, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were in part designed to overturn its holding.

I note that Finkelman omits to cite WHO, if anyone, clamied the civil war was caused by Dred Scott. No substantiation for that line. therefore, I report that I did get rid of what user:America'sRoof rightly calls "naive" and "flamebait". Mang (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Help!!!

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are people who keep messing up this article. Admins keep banning people who vandalize this article. Plz help!!! Yoshi24517 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

With the banning or the "messing up" ? BushelCandle (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dred Scott v. Sandford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930201342/http://www.historynet.com/magazines/civil_war_times/3037746.html to http://www.historynet.com/magazines/civil_war_times/3037746.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dred Scott v. Sandford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dred Scott v. Sandford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dred Scott v. Sandford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020908182323/http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=52 to http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=52

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Ref 7 goes nowhere useful

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ref 7 goes nowhere useful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy Lewis (talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I've added an archive link to the citation. clpo13_(talk) 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Dred and Harriet Scot Monument.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

African Americans

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article needs to be re-written without the term "African Americans". The legal discussion in question specifically states that people of African origin cannot be or become Americans, so this modern term for Americans of recent African descent with African physical features is contradictory to the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.122.29 (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"American" doesn't necessarily mean "American citizen". Prior to 1775-1788, there was no country called "the United States of America" and thus no American citizens, but there were plenty of Americans. In general if someone was born in Country X and has lived there his entire life, the default presumption is that he is an X-ite, independent of legal status. ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 12:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with the IP's comments and after 9 months with no dissenting comments have edited the lede to use the language used in the Supreme Court at the time.

This change to less politically correct and confusing language also has the bonus of being more intelligible to the plurality of English language users outside of the US that do not suffer the logic-twisting exigencies of US fashion. (My Ugandan friends who had to jump through hoops to obtain a visa to visit the US are always appalled to be termed "African Americans" - rather than Kenyans, Africans or blacks - when they have finally passed the ordeal of US Homeland Security interrogations and searches and emerge blinking to try and find a cab.) BushelCandle (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Supreme Court votes

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article does not name all the justices in that 1857 decision, which raises the question if the ones that were set against Dred Scott's plea did so because they were slaveowners themselves. Musicwriter (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how does it raise that question and why would such speculation be relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukacris (talk • contribs) 08:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Dred Scott “decision”

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If the principal issue at bar in the trial court was not the issue of “standing,” how is it that the high court BOTH reversed the earlier decision AND dismissed the case, principally, on that very issue?

How is it that the case came to result in a “decision” handed down from the high court if it concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue?

Shouldn’t it have been dismissed as “improvidentially granted” (as to cert), wth no published vote or opinions?

How is it that the plaintiff could be found to lack standing to sue yet have his case result in a ruling—for or against the “plaintiff”—by the high court, including an official decision, with a published vote and majority, concurring and dissenting opinions?

Doesn’t the fact that the case resulted in a “decision” handed down by the Supreme Court belie the contention that plaintiff lacked standing?

Something about seeing and hearing the “”Dred Scott “case” referred to as the “Dred Scott decision” has always bothered me. ZuntaBlunta (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)