The decision was prolly right, by the law, in the Dred Scott case, if Taney was a racist ass, or not. It decided two things. Former slaves, freedman, or any black person, had no rights the country had to observe, and thus no real standing in court, and Congress had no authority to enact laws in the territories regarding slavery.
A Civil War happened and 3 Amendments were passed to sort that all out. So the execrable parts of Dred Scott resolved.
But us gunnies note the ruling did elucidate the assumptions people had in the 1850s regarding individual rights of US Citizens. So when an anti-gun person says that them old timers just thought of right to keep and bear arms belong only to the militia, we can point to this case as a dispositive to that collective right nonsense.
Kopel goes into all this in a long Federalist article. I've been harping on this subject a while, but Kopel does a much better job. RTHT, &c.
3 comments:
Thanks!! I have never read that decision before, but I have now! It could not be more clear and on point.
Thanks for reminding me of Dred Scott. I stole your link.
One of the interesting points with slavery here in the US was that one of the early slaveholders was a black man. IIRC, he was not an ex-slave. At the time, slaves were not restricted to just blacks.
Post a Comment