JC> BTW, can you cite me some Supreme Court decisions (other than Dred Scott
  > where the court was obviously tilted in the favor of the South and the 
issu
  > wasn't slavery, per se) where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of 
lavery?
  > would like to read the affirming and dissenting statements to see exactly
  > how they bring the Constitution into the issue.
Of course!  (g)  However, I do retract a bit.  The decisions were not
consistent.  When Marshall was chief justice, decisions did not tend to
favor the south.  That changed about the time Taney became chief
justice.  So this data wil not prove my supposition that the constituion
supported slavery.  As a matter of fact, the first case tried in the
Supreme Court at all, that concerned slavery, was tried under Marshall
(in 1829). The question was whether a slave, who had drowned in a
steamboat accident, was freight, which would have meant the steamboat
company would be liable for his *damage*, or a passenger, for whom the
steamboat company would not be liable without further legal action. The
court ruled the slave was a person, and, therefore, a passenger.
Southern states were not happy with this decision.
Under Taney, I found the following trials concerning the slave issue:
(the first one also did not rule pro-slavery, but the court also did not
yet have a majority of members who were from slave states)
1) 1841:  In 1839, the Spanish schooner, Amistad, with a cargo of 54
Blacks kidnapped from Africa to be sold as slave in Cuba, was taken
over by the slaves, who killed the Captain and all but two of the
crewmen.  The two surviving crewmen were ordered to sail the boat back
to Africa.  Instead, they sailed it to the US.  Spain declared that the
ship and slaves belonged to Spanish subjects, and that the US was
obligated by its 1819 treaty to return them to their rightful owner.
The lawyers arguing on behalf of the slaves said the Blacks could not be
returned because they were born free men, and were curently residing in
a free state.  The court ruled that the Blacks were free men, and that
the treaty of 1819 did not apply in this case.
2) 1842:  Prigg vs Pennsylvania:  The court ruled that a state could not
pass a law requiring a court hearing for a person accused of being a
fugitive slave before the person was removed from the state. (definitely
supports slavery)
3) 1850:  Strader vs Graham:  The court ruled that the federal courts
could not make the decision that a slave became free upon reaching a
free state.  (probably more an evasion of the issue that came to a head
with Dred Scott than an actual support of anything)
4)  And then, of course, the famous Dred Scott case, where the court
ruled that no slave of a US citizen or resident could become a citizen
of the US, and neither could any of their descendents forever.
                          Sondra
-*-
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ Deep peace of the quiet earth to you.  Gaelic blessing
--- Opus-CBCS 1.7x via O_QWKer 1.7 
---------------