Justice Samuel Nelson
As another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter.
Much too often the deplorable justices on all the courts are the ones that are not just remembered but leave horrible marks upon the American governance.
In this examination of the Dred Scott decision, the Lame Cherry examines this case from the point of a New York appointed Justice on the Supreme Court, in Samuel Nelson. What is of interest in Justice Nelson's support for the majority decision, mirrors Justice Samuel Alito's decision in nullifying federal jurisdiction of Roe vs Wade or aborticide and placed the measure before the States where it rightly belonged.
The Lame Cherry, contrary to the convenient decision for the majority written by Chief Justice Roger Taney. Justice Taney is maligned always, but he was a legal treasure to the United States as Attorney General, he stood against the centralized bank as appointed by President Andrew Jackson. He was later appointed as Chief Justice to replace, Chief Justice John Marshall, another titan of the court for legal redress before the court.
Justice Taney according to the law, of the United States which focused upon the major issues of:
Could property be denied the owner if the owner took it to another State?
Could property which was never afforded Federal rights be transferred from the State?
Could the Federal deny the Citizen or the State the Right to property?
Meet you on the other side.
The Court's majority opinion, written by Taney, was given on March 6, 1857. He first held that no African-American, free or enslaved, had ever enjoyed the rights of a citizen under the Constitution. He argued that, for more than a century leading up to the ratification of the Constitution, blacks had been "regarded as beings of an inferior order, altogether unfit to associate with the white race ... and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect". To bolster the argument that blacks were widely regarded as legally inferior when the Constitution was adopted, Taney pointed to various state laws, but ignored the fact that five states had allowed blacks to vote in 1788. He next declared that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, and that the Constitution did not grant Congress the power to bar slavery in the territories. Taney argued that the federal government served as a "trustee" to the people of the territory, and could not deprive the right of slaveowners to take slaves into the territories. Only the states, Taney asserted, could bar slavery. Finally, he held that Scott remained a slave.
There are facts in this whether people care to ignore them, Africans were kidnapped out of Africa by Obama's Luo tribe, and sold to slave traders, who brought them to America as property. Under America law this was all legal. They were property.
Just because slavery was not a legal standing in a Northern State, did not make a slave free, as it did not alter the status of personal property. The government State or Federal could not deny property or not compensate for seized property.
That was the over reach of the Missouri Compromise which the Court struck down. The Congress had no Constitutional authority to deny any person their right to property, that included slaves. To bar in new territories the Right of the Citizen to take their property was not authorized by the Constitution.
While the focus is always on what is the matter of the heart in slavery, that is not a matter of legality which Justice Taney was basing the decision upon. Justice Taney and the 6 other Justices ruled correctly for Citizen, State and property Rights.
What is of interest in this is that Justice Nelson was supposed to write the original decision for the majority, but when the two Northern Justices wrote a dissent attacking the Court's decision, Justice Taney correctly discerned this was another Northern political attack upon Southern dominance on the American political system. Justice Taney the wrote an expanded ruling, not just on property rights, but addressing the issue could slaves who were brought to America and never intended to become Citizens, could have that Right bestowed upon them. The answer was "No".
Meet you on the other side.
In Dred Scott, Nelson was originally assigned to write the majority opinion. That opinion upheld the decision of the Missouri state court against Scott (in Scott v. Emerson), but on the narrow grounds of whether Scott was freed by his temporary residence in a free state. Nelson, avoiding controversy and partisanship as usual, did not address any of the other questions raised in the case, such as black citizenship and the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise.
While Justice Nelson was preparing this opinion, Justices McLean and Curtis decided to write vehement dissenting opinions. Learning this, Chief Justice Taney, supported by the other southern Justices, decided to write a majority opinion asserting the southern view on those issues: that blacks could not be citizens and the Compromise's restrictions on slavery were unconstitutional.
Despite this switch within the Court, Justice Nelson's views did not change. On March 6, 1857, the Court ruled 7–2 that Dred Scott and his family remained slaves. Justice Nelson concurred in the decision. He issued a separate concurring opinion explaining his different reasoning. He wrote that the question of slavery is one that each state is responsible in deciding for itself, "either by its Legislature or courts of justice, and hence, in respect to the case before us, to the State of Missouri – a question exclusively of Missouri law, and which, when determined by that State, it is the duty of the Federal courts to follow it. In other words, except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction."Therefore, the Federal courts had no jurisdiction, and the appeal should be dismissed with no further discussion. While his reasoning was different from Taney's, he upheld the ruling that Dred Scott was still enslaved. Nelson was a northern Democrat and a Unionist, and was said to be inclined to anti-slavery views.
Before the Civil War, Nelson worked to reach a compromise to prevent a war. In the winter of 1861 Justice Nelson joined Justice John Campbell as intermediaries between southern secessionists and President-elect Lincoln. Even after the fighting started, he tried to find a compromise. Nelson was distressed at this failure. Although staunchly opposed to war and critical of many of Lincoln's policies, he remained loyal to the Union.
Just as when President John Tyler ended the Rothschild of London Banking "Central Bank" to take control of America, and mobs appeared which attacked the White House and President literally, the Rothschild abolitionists were funded and promoted, and a split was initiated in the Democratic Party so that Abraham Lincoln would be installed to instigate a Civil War inside the United States, the same explosion took place over the Dred Scott Decision. The Civil War was Rothschild designed to bankrupt America and force Abraham Lincoln into borrowing money to fight the war against the South.
The British and French Empires both had armies assembled in Mexico and Canada to invade the United States. The Czar of Russia joined President Lincoln in a combined naval force which ended the British and English squadrons.
President Abraham Lincoln later weaponized the Negro as a terror weapon against the South. The Emancipation Proclamation is not Constitutional as it deprives States of their Rights of property without compensation. These are the issues involved in this, and they meld into Justice Alito's striking down aborticide. That is why Justice Alito specifically stated that the majority ruling was narrow and only dealt with aborticide being turned over to the States.
In this Justice Alito was farsighted, in the same Rothschild elements could take Roe vs Wade being turned over to the States to start legalizing all sorts of nullifying Rights as gun ownership or expanding pedophilia.
The fact is that in any reparations, it is not the Negro who should have anything. It is the States and the Citizen who owned slaves, the greater number were Jewish who should be compensated for their property being seized from them.
The Constitution avails a process to change. It involves the States creating in Convention alterations. The problems America has are Executive Orders, Congressional over reach and Judicial legislation from the bench.
The fact is, those who attack Justice Taney are the same political vermin who lust for expedience over the Constitution. Justice John Roberts is one such treacherous example in his Obamcare to the Neil Gorsuch ruling for sodomite privilege. All of these come from London banking and are applauded like exterminating millions of American children in the womb, so that invaders are allowed in to break American law to overcome the babies who were slaughtered.
It is time that Justice Taney and Justice Nelson have a correct historical recording of their upholding the Constitution. They were absolutely correct in their ruling. They are the Constitutional Justices who served America on the Supreme Court.
This is another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter.
Nuff Said
agtG
