<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
The Dred Scott case had a few side effects that you neglected to mention:
1. It widened the gap between North and South enormously.
2. It led to the emergence of Lincoln as the Republican presidential candidate in 1860, and his subsequent election. Why? The majority of the country picked him, nota disaffected minority.
3. This led to the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the ultimate end of slavery.
We can speculate all day long on Dred Scott's causitive power in the Civil War, but Dred Scott undoubtedly proved how incredibly durable, flexible, and responsive the American system is.
Based on the will of the majority, an unjust decision was not only overturned, but caused an upheaval of an unjust society.
Based on the will of the majority, not a disaffected minority. Majority. </font>
Guy, this is not an attack but a genuine question.
What the heck is your preoccupation with 'will of the majority' and your utter contempt for the 'disaffected minority' as you like put it'. It is almost like some sort of pathology. No, I am serious, every thread, every post it's 'majority, majority, majority'. I mean, have at it's your right but it comes off as kind of odd, at least to me.
Allow me a gentle reminder that the Founding Fathers were explicitly concerned with and provided for the protection of the rights of the minority. As I am sure you are aware, the U.S. is not a Democracy as such. Additionally your idea that
your opinions as regards these matters are in the majority is, at this point, nothing more than speculation and wishful thinking on your part. I await the evidence of a clear 'majority'.
Cheers
Edited to add before someone overreacts: "Pathology, An abnormal variation from a sound condition."
i.e. in regards to an argument or position in this instance.
[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 01-16-2003).]