To Postpone the ACW

Wi there were different Justices on the Supreme court and, respecting oddly enough the principle of States Rights, they declared Dred Scott free.

Suppose John Brown had been killed in Kansas and his gesture never happened.

I am guessing that both sides are less animated.

Douglas defeats Lincoln in Illinois, Indiana and New York, likely this is enough to get him elected, even if there is a split and some southern candidates runs indepndently.

However is the prevention or postponentment?
 

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
Chief Justice Taney was very much a southerner. I believe the decision would have been respected, and Scott's former "owner" laughed at for taking him north in the first place.

With the passage of each year the combination of industrialization and immigration made the north stronger and stronger relative to the south. Postponing the war eight years (two terms for Douglas) may butterfly the war and if not, make it much shorter and less damaging to the south and the country as a whole.
 
I think that if Dred Scott was given his freedom by the Supreme Court nothing else would matter, the South would have been enraged and scared. Secession would have quickly followed, the bigger question is what does Buchanan do? He did nothing when the South was seceding in OTL. Does he let them go without a challenge?
 
Chief Justice Taney was very much a southerner. I believe the decision would have been respected, and Scott's former "owner" laughed at for taking him north in the first place.

With the passage of each year the combination of industrialization and immigration made the north stronger and stronger relative to the south. Postponing the war eight years (two terms for Douglas) may butterfly the war and if not, make it much shorter and less damaging to the south and the country as a whole.

I don't think that Taney being a Southerner would mean anything to the pro-slavery radicals in the South. He would have been labeled as a traitor.
 
I think that if Dred Scott was given his freedom by the Supreme Court nothing else would matter, the South would have been enraged and scared.

Well this is possible, is there any evidence the South would have acted as such? If Dredd Scott won the decision, it would have only confirmed the actual status quo - nothing would have been lost by the South since slavery had already been abolished in the northern states, and the power of the Federal government to determine which territories were permitted to have slaves was long established.

After all, it is one thing to ask that fugitive slaves escaping to the north be returned back; it is another when a slaveowner willingly takes a slave up north and lives there.

The fire eaters will never be satisfied regardless of what happens. Secession was never dependent on them. Secession can only happen if the fire eaters can form an alliance with moderates that provide a majority. Can the Dred Scott decision provoke that alliance? I don't think it would.
 
The best way to deal with the Dredd Scott case is for it simply not to happen. I remember reading there were several points where it never would have gone to the supreme court, or to court at all.
 
Well this is possible, is there any evidence the South would have acted as such? If Dredd Scott won the decision, it would have only confirmed the actual status quo - nothing would have been lost by the South since slavery had already been abolished in the northern states, and the power of the Federal government to determine which territories were permitted to have slaves was long established.

After all, it is one thing to ask that fugitive slaves escaping to the north be returned back; it is another when a slaveowner willingly takes a slave up north and lives there.

The fire eaters will never be satisfied regardless of what happens. Secession was never dependent on them. Secession can only happen if the fire eaters can form an alliance with moderates that provide a majority. Can the Dred Scott decision provoke that alliance? I don't think it would.

I think that most slave owning southerners would at least be concerned that the Supreme Court would continue to make anti-slavery rulings. Without support on the Supreme Court and shrinking numbers in the House of Representatives the South would be a very unstable powder keg. The smart radicals would start talking about being surrounded by an ever increasing number of enemies determined to destroy the Southern way of life. I think Dred Scott given his freedom would have far reaching effects.
 
I thought about a Cuba Territory being admitted as a Slave State in 1850 (or 1851) as a counter to California's admittance as a Free State. That might delay any further compromises on the issue until the next territory applies for admittance.
 
Taney's appointment appears to have been rather contentious. Perhaps if the Anti-Jacksonians had retained a few more seats, they could've blocked the nomination and forced Jackson to appointment someone less... controversial. That would have ramifications for not only the Dred Scott decisions but all the other decisions during that time as well.
 
Why does Taney matter? If the other justices are different, then he can be outvoted. Hes the Chief Justice, not the Sole Justice.

Mind you, youd have to change a lot of the court. Wasnt the decision (?almost?) unanimous?
 
Wi there were different Justices on the Supreme court and, respecting oddly enough the principle of States Rights, they declared Dred Scott free.

Suppose John Brown had been killed in Kansas and his gesture never happened.

I am guessing that both sides are less animated.

Douglas defeats Lincoln in Illinois, Indiana and New York, likely this is enough to get him elected, even if there is a split and some southern candidates runs indepndently.

However is the prevention or postponentment?

On Dred Scott, you aren't going to get that ruling from Taney et al., but you don't need to. The Supreme Court can simply decline to hear the case. Or the Supreme Court can hear the case and simply rule against Dred Scott on the basis that the Missouri supreme court did--that his status was determined by the laws of the state where he was domiciled when the suit was brought. Neither one of those rulings will touch off a firestorm.
 
Top