Hindsight is 20/20
- When the Kansas-Nebraska Act was being debated, it wasn't clear why it was stated that the people would only be under the control of the U.S. Constitution.
- Now it's clear that the use of the Constitution created the means for the Dred Scott case to come in and stop the people's ability to ban slavery.
- The Dred Scott decision, as a reminder, said it was unconstitutional for Congress to ban slavery, so if people were only subject to the Constitution, they couldn't ban it either.
- Lincoln asks a series of questions about the process of passing the Kansas-Nebraska Act, sometimes answering them.
- He goes over some sketchy things that happened during the debates, like the defeat of the Chase Amendment, holding off on public declarations until after the 1856 election, why the incoming and outgoing presidents made public statements when they did.
- Of course, Lincoln and the audience can't say for sure that all these things were part of some conspiracy, but there are too many pieces that fit together too well to ignore the idea that this situation is the result of the plans of others over the course of many years.
- The Kansas-Nebraska Act includes the language that states as well as territories are subject only to the Constitution—which is weird because that bill was only supposed to be about territories.
- The Kansas bill lumped states and territories together, but the Supreme Court didn't specify what the states' powers were.
- It's unclear how the Supreme Court feels about the power of states to prohibit slavery—Justice Nelson talks about it, but again the states are the highest authority except when controlled by the U.S. Constitution.
- When is that exactly?
- That ambiguity opens the door for the Supreme Court to say the states have to follow the U.S. Constitution in this case, and cannot ban slavery.