So you knew your claims were bollocks. It wasn’t you were misled, it’s that you knowingly lied.

But that wasn’t what you claimed. You claimed he was for the emancipation and that the dissent in this case was the “real reason” slavery went on for decades longer.

The sonic boom of the goalposts moving was unheard by d’oh because his head was shoved so firmly up your ass, it appears. He over-kissed it.

“while one dissenter argued blacks could be citizens and still denied the right to vote.”

Except that is a flat out lie. The ONLY PERSON who is saying that is you, “mike”. And oddly enough the echoes of your voice never reached d’oh or kevin.

Of course that’s because you loathe me and want to see me hang. You never bother to post unless it’s to slag me off.
But you’re totally not obsessed.

Hey, I note that you you ,d’oh,do not want to see “Mike”‘s error and his octupling down of the bullshit. Not seeing you disagree there. Not at all.

“The Declaration was essentially an explanation and justification for those who signed it committing treason against their country”

So the freedoms of people is, you claim, a complete and utter bald faced lie.

Good luck making THAT fly.

They get pissed off when you tell them that they invented the post of president to make it look to the yokels like they had a king. Telling them they were bullshiting and everyone accepts it was bullshit about US freedoms and equality (and quadruply about god, the constitutionalists ALWAYS bleat on about how god is in the constitution when it’s in the declaration it talks about god, the constitution carefully avoids it).

And yet it;s only here you refuse to see what your error is.

Laser like focus on an error that doesn’t even exist.

“The Articles of Confederation bound the states loosely. Which leads to the preamble of the Constitution”

Sine you refuse point blank to allow the declaration to be in any way a source for the constitution, you cannot claim that the articles do.

Doing so is your lie, d’oh. But I predict you will double down on it and never accept that accusation, insisting you were right all along.

You’re a predictable idiot. But still an idiot.

That’s not a “point”, it’s just three assertions that don’t really make sense.

Taney maintains that African-Americans are “a race”, and, that they are an “inferior” race that can be treated as property. You can even say that slavery should end “sometime” and still be a racist.

How you think all this relates to Plessy is still beyond me.

With respect to voting, perhaps you should read the history of the women’s voting rights process– in fact, States did individually determine that until the 19th Amendment.

Sorry, I really can’t follow your reasoning.

“Why? I am able to distinguish between them. But unlike you I know what the declaration means. Apparently you think it means nothing but eggy farts at breakfast table. Something unpleasant to pretend never happened.”

The Declaration was essentially an explanation and justification for those who signed it committing treason against their country, England. It was certainly more flowery and high-minded than the reason given by the South for committing treason against the United States (“slaves, slaves, and more slaves!”). But the historical fact is that the Founders knew they were committing treason (and would likely be executed if the Revolution failed), and that the Declaration was meant to rally the citizenry and to provide ammunition for their friends in Parliament who they hoped would be able to get that body and the King to accept their independence.

The Articles of Confederation bound the states loosely. Which leads to the preamble of the Constitution, “to create a more perfect Union” – more perfect than that formed by the Articles. While the Declaration was revered as a sort of philosophical foundational document for the Union, it really didn’t enter into the construction of the Constitution at all. “unalienable rights” wasn’t granted by the Constitution which, after all, explicitly acknowledged slavery.

I read the Wikipedia quotes.
I’ve always thought that Taney was motivated by racism in his decision, stretching to produce a right to slavery. The only thing that gives me pause now from agreeing(not that I am disagreeing) is that Taney once argued the following in court:

Any man has a right to publish his opinions on that subject [slavery] whenever he pleases. It is a subject of national concern, and may at all times be freely discussed. Mr. Gruber did quote the language of our great act of national independence, and insisted on the principles contained in that venerated instrument. He did rebuke those masters, who, in the exercise of power, are deaf to the calls of humanity; and he warned them of the evils they might bring upon themselves. He did speak with abhorrence of those reptiles, who live by trading in human flesh, and enrich themselves by tearing the husband from the wife—the infant from the bosom of the mother: and this I am instructed was the head and front of his offending. Shall I content myself with saying he had a right to say this? That there is no law to punish him? So far is he from being the object of punishment in any form of proceeding, that we are prepared to maintain the same principles, and to use, if necessary, the same language here in the temple of justice, and in the presence of those who are the ministers of the law. A hard necessity, indeed, compels us to endure the evil of slavery for a time. It was imposed upon us by another nation, while we were yet in a state of colonial vassalage. It cannot be easily, or suddenly removed. Yet while it continues it is a blot on our national character, and every real lover of freedom confidently hopes that it will be effectually, though it must be gradually, wiped away; and earnestly looks for the means, by which this necessary object may be best attained. And until it shall be accomplished: until the time shall come when we can point without a blush, to the language held in the Declaration of Independence, every friend of humanity will seek to lighten the galling chain of slavery, and better, to the utmost of his power, the wretched condition of the slave.

Such was Mr. Gruber’s object in that part of his sermon, of which I am now speaking. Those who have complained of him, and reproached him, will not find it easy to answer him: unless complaints, reproaches and persecution shall be considered an answer.

I asked you where you got your original quote, that you attribute to Taney. Still waiting…

And I’m curious if you actually read the quote I referenced in Wikipedia, since you still don’t seem to understand Taney’s argument.

“Mike” doesn’t disagree, he just insists it’s something else other than!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

In a thread where you whined about how I refused to say I was wrong, you come up with that lame-ass weaselese? Oh yeah, you aren’t disagreeing with it, you just make claims contrary to it and with a completely different meaning. You just never said “Nuh uh”.

LOL.

” If it was racism then as I said, I would be incorrect that Taney would rule for Plessy”

Where? Here?

I said Taney would rule for Plessy because of the quote above.

…

It is of course possible that Taney was just trying to invent an argument towards the pro-slavery conclusion he preferred, but the logic of his decision leads towards Plessy and against Jim Crow.

?

Ooops!

ROFL!

“the dissenter Curtis( said it’s OK for citizens to be treated differently based on skin color.”

Nope. Wrong again.

But, hey, Kev, D’oh!, you’ll want to berate “mike” here for being too stupid to admit his herror, right?

“Is this not pointing out that you’ve misquoted the Constitution?”

Ooh, no, No it isn’t, dearie. Neither is it saying it’s in the declaration of independence.

But it looks like you just cannot bring yourself to admit you were wrong, can you?

Snrk.