Throughout the nineteenth century - both before and after the Civil War - Congress monkeyed around with what the federal Courts looked like. A big part of this was about the responsibilties of justices to the federal Circuit Courts. /3
-
-
Right.....a territory argument. That’s some way to twist a debate about the fates of millions of people who were being held in bondage and Douglas wanted to expand the practice despite the idealism of the US constitution.
-
The only way you can look at the constitution and frame this as a “states rights” territory issue is if you have a problem with seeing all people as in fact people.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Indeed. But you didn't need the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott to make it an issue -- it already was one. Republicans absolutely used the decision to create political support but Taney's decision was not the trigger for conflict on that issue.
-
I don't think you need to treat Dred Scott as somehow the sole cause of the war (it wasn't) to see it as a dangerous, prominent & significant step down that path & one that we should be very hesitant to repeat.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
It's also telling that during the secession crisis you didn't see white Southerners worry about Lincoln "packing" the Court with Republicans, even as that was an obvious and real possibility. Their concerns were much more about local and state level patronage.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.