7 Cool Reasons to Take Mississippi Riverboat Cruises

[Host Jazzbeau]

New Cruise Critic Article:

7 Cool Reasons to Take Mississippi Riverboat Cruises

http://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=2112

[4774Papa]

Having been to New Orleans, Vicksburg and Memphis, this cruise has little appeal to me.

Also, the prices are not low.

[TravelerThom]

New Cruise Critic Article:

7 Cool Reasons to Take Mississippi Riverboat Cruises

http://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=2112

I never cease to be amazed:eek: at how consistently Cruise Critic Articles get basic facts wrong. Quote:

"Travel upriver and stand in the St. Louis courtroom where a judge told Dred Scott and his family that they were not free citizens of the United States (only to have the decision reversed at the Supreme Court)."

 

When Dred Scott v. Sandford was appealed to the Supreme Court, the decision against Scott was UPHELD (not reversed) by a vote of 7-2.

 

High School history and Wikipedia are your friends. If the Cruise Critic editorial writers can't get facts right, it does not give me much confidence in their opinions.:(

 

Thom

[pvlinda]

Heard that Viking plans to start Mississippi River sailings in a year or two. If they keep their same cruise formula this should bring a whole new perspective to these cruises.

[Hydrokitty]

I never cease to be amazed:eek: at how consistently Cruise Critic Articles get basic facts wrong. Quote:

"Travel upriver and stand in the St. Louis courtroom where a judge told Dred Scott and his family that they were not free citizens of the United States (only to have the decision reversed at the Supreme Court)."

 

When Dred Scott v. Sandford was appealed to the Supreme Court, the decision against Scott was UPHELD (not reversed) by a vote of 7-2.

 

High School history and Wikipedia are your friends. If the Cruise Critic editorial writers can't get facts right, it does not give me much confidence in their opinions.:(

 

Thom

 

The inaccuracy isn't in the decisions, it's in the Court that rendered them. The initial decision in 1847 rendered by the St Louis Circuit Ct. threw the case out on a technicality (Scott could not prove that he was owned by Dr. Emerson's widow). In 1850 the Missouri Supreme Ct., in Jefferson City, ordered the case retried and returned it to the St Louis Circuit Ct., which then found Scott and his family to be free. In 1852 the Missouri Supreme Ct. reversed the Circuit Ct. again and in 1854 trial was brought in the US Circuit Ct. in St. Louis and the decision of the Missouri Supreme Ct. was upheld, which decision was then appealed to the US Supreme Ct. with the infamous result that since black people could not be citizens of the U.S. they had no standing to sue. That decision also held the Missouri Compromise restricting slavery in certain territories to be unconstitutional. So technically you can stand in the same St. Louis courtroom where Dred Scott was told that he and his family were not free.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Hydrokitty