Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« "Sorry, New York. The Second Amendment applies outside the home" | Main | South Dakota goes for "constitutional carry" »

My new book, on Dred Scott

Posted by David Hardy · 29 January 2019 10:49 AM

My newest book is on Amazon -- Dred Scott: The Inside Story. And it is an inside story.

Scott's St. Louis attorney sued a New York City businessman, John Sanford, who had no claim to holding him in slavery, but stipulated that he did. Historians have debated the reason for that for 150 years. The most encyclopedic work on the subject, which won the Pulitzer for history, concludes we'll never know, but shouldn't assume collusion unless someone finds strong evidence proving it.

I found the evidence, an eyewitness who was in the room when the deal went down, and wrote about it a half-century later, in an unpublished autobiography housed in the New York Historical Society's Naval Collection. Sanford agreed to be the defendant in order to keep his sister's name out of the case and the newspapers, because she had married an antislavery Congressman. (It didn't work: a week after the decision, all the pro-slavery newspapers identified the couple as the owners and attacked him as a hypocrite). In the Lincoln-Douglas debates Douglas used the point repeatedly against Lincoln, arguing that the case couldn't have been an pro-slavery plot because Dred Scott was owned by an abolitionist.

That discovery requires a rewrite of history in another sense. The conventional history is that the case was filed in St. Louis, with local attorneys on either side. When it reached the Supreme Court, the pro-slavery side retained Reverdy Johnson, former Attorney General and the top Supreme Court advocate in the country, to come in and attack the Missouri Compromise and thus Congressional power to limit slavery in the territories. But I found Johnson was the man who persuaded Sanford to come into the case - meaning Johnson was planning the case even before it was filed. And planning an attack on the Missouri Compromise. Meaning he or others suckered Scott's attorney into filing, think the case involved a few narrow issues, when they were planning a much broader attack, and kept that secret until the Supreme Court argument.

I also found (though others have found this before) that President Buchanan was lobbying the Supreme Court to strike down the Compromise, and the pro-slavery justices were recruiting his help and informing him of the Court's deliberations.

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Mark-1 | February 1, 2019 6:55 AM | Reply

I know there was much anti-Masonic sentiment associated with Dredd Scott. Much of it false after reading Masonic papers from Ohio.

Missouri Compromise: wasn't that replaced by Kansas-Nebraska Act?

Mark-1 replied to comment from Mark-1 | February 1, 2019 11:02 AM | Reply

Sorta funny OP should bring Dredd Scott up now. I've been listening to attorneys musing on recent SCOTUS direction on Roe/Wade. Dredd Scott has been brought up in discussion.

Leave a comment