-=> Quoting Sondra Ball to Jim Casto <=-
 SB> Of course!  (g)  However, I do retract a bit.  The decisions were not
 SB> consistent.
 Now _THAT_ we can agree upon. (And, of course, SC descisions are _still_
 not consistent on _many_ subjects. )
 SB> constituion supported slavery.  As a matter of fact, the first case
 SB> tried in the Supreme Court at all, that concerned slavery, was tried
 SB> under Marshall (in 1829).
 There is a fairly new book out called "The Oxford Companion to the
 Supreme Court of the United States". It's a $55 book so I haven't bought it.
 (I _could_ get it through the History Book Club for $22, but I'm not sure
 I need $22 worth of info on the SC. ) Anyway, it has a page or two on
 SC cases related to slavery. If I find a copy somewhere and I can just copy
 those couple of pages I can add some details, but I _think_ there _were_
 some cases involving slavery and the SC earlier than the 1829 case you are
 citing. (I didn't have time to sit on the floor of the bookstore making
 notes. ) 
 SB> The question was whether a slave, who had
 SB> drowned in a steamboat accident, was freight, which would have meant
 SB> the steamboat company would be liable for his *damage*, or a passenger,
 SB> for whom the steamboat company would not be liable without further
 SB> legal action. The court ruled the slave was a person, and, therefore, a
 SB> passenger. Southern states were not happy with this decision.
 
 But, to take this one case... IMHO, the case before the court is not ruling
 on the legality of slavery _itself_. _Supporting_ the pro-slavery faction?
 No doubt. But that (to my way of thinking) is not the same as ruling on the
 Constitutional legality of slavery itself. Other issues such as the death
 penalty, abortion, etc. fall into the same kind of category. The SC rules
 (at least they have in the past) whether or not state laws, government 
unds,
 types of executions, etc. are "legal". The SC in many, many cases does not
 come right out and say "such and suchs' is legal, from a _federal_
 perspective, under the Constitution.
 SB> Under Taney, I found the following trials concerning the slave issue:
 SB> (the first one also did not rule pro-slavery, but the court also did
 SB> not yet have a majority of members who were from slave states)
 SB> (definitely supports slavery)
 
 Absolutely. But that case and the other cases you cited still skirted the
 _real_ issue. From the Constitution authors to the SC, _nobody_ wanted to
 confront the _real_ issue headon. Too much fear that it would divide the
 Union, which it inevitably did. But after the CW, a Constitutional 
 Amendment _was_ passed and ratified making the slavery issue absolutely
 _Constitutional_. (And one of the few "crimes" related to man's inhumanity
 to his fellowman that _is_ in the Constitution.) It took a blood bath to
 convince _some_ people.
 Today, we could put issues such as abortion and the death penalty in the
 same category. From time to time various SCs have supported (or not
 supported) both sides of those issues. But there are still no _absolutes_
 in the Constitution for either of those. It takes the passage of amendments
 and ratification of the states to make those "absolutes" under the
 Constitution.
 Jim
--- Blue Wave v2.12
---------------