Posted on 10/20/2018 7:40:49 PM PDT by iowamark
As a work of presidential prose, James Buchanan’s inaugural address on March 4, 1857, is widely considered one of the most forgettable ever given by an American leader. As The New York Times put it dryly at the time: “Little if any impression has been made by the inaugural.” Still, it would not take long for Buchanan’s unimpressive inauguration to become one of the most significant in history. For one thing, it was the first to be photographed. It was also the first inaugural given after the creation of the Republican Party, the last before secession and ultimately the last one that a Democrat would give for almost 30 years.
Buchanan’s oath of office was also administered by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney. Yes, that Justice Taney, the one who just two days later would hand down the Supreme Court’s landmark Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, in which the court held that Congress had no power to deprive slaveholders in U.S. territories of their property — because, as Taney put it, Blacks were “so far inferior that they had no rights which the White man was bound to respect.”
In his address, Buchanan anticipated that forthcoming decision, opining that the question of slavery in U.S. territories was “happily, a matter of but little practical importance” and saying he would “cheerfully submit” to the Supreme Court resolving it “speedily and finally.” But, in truth, Buchanan had not submitted to anything. Far from being the cheerful and passive chief executive deferring to judicial authority, Buchanan had for weeks been busy behind the scenes orchestrating the result in Dred Scott, lobbying for what is arguably the worst decision in U.S. Supreme Court history. Buchanan’s actions serve as a stark reminder of what can go wrong when a president meddles in the business of the separate, and ostensibly, apolitical judicial branch.
It’s hard to exaggerate the impact that the Dred Scott decision had on American history. The decision, in which a 7-2 majority of the court declared the Missouri Compromise (under which Congress allowed one slave state to be admitted to the Union alongside one free state) unconstitutional, helped put the country on the path to civil war. The court’s ruling had been postponed until after the inauguration — after pressure from Buchanan. And it turns out, the president-elect had been lobbying the court for much more than that. A long-serving diplomat, Buchanan hoped he could alleviate the tension over the expansion of slavery by convincing the American people to let the Supreme Court have the last word on the subject. But Buchanan knew that if the decision (from a court composed of five Southerners and four Northerners) came down along party lines, or was too narrow in scope, it would be far less impactful.
So Buchanan, who had close personal ties with many on the court — including the chief justice and Justice Robert Cooper Grier of Pennsylvania, both alumni of Dickinson College like the president-elect — set about twisting some judicial arms in the run-up to his inauguration. Thanks to Buchanan’s efforts, Taney, Grier and five other justices threw their weight behind a decision that would not only nullify the Missouri Compromise (only the second Supreme Court decision to invalidate an act of Congress) but also help legitimize the institution of slavery. In fact, right before Taney administered Buchanan’s oath of office at the inauguration, the two men briefly conversed on the Capitol stairs, according to witnesses, and it is believed that Buchanan updated his speech to reflect Taney’s confirmation that the court would issue a broader holding in Dred Scott in a matter of days.
Such extra-constitutional influence on the court by a president (or president-elect) was just as inappropriate in Buchanan’s day as it would be in ours. But the diplomat in Buchanan pressed forward anyway, treating the North and South almost as if they were separate countries whose interests needed to be resolved once and for all by an international tribunal. In the end, however, Buchanan’s diplomacy would prove deeply misguided. “He foolishly believed the Supreme Court could do what Congress and the presidency had not,” says Michael L. Carrafiello, a history professor at Miami University: “Provide a final solution to the slavery question.”
Far from imposing a final solution, Dred Scott, says Carrafiello, was the beginning of the end of the Union, pulling the rug out from under those hoping to find a “middle way,” emboldening Southern slaveholders and forcing abolitionists to redouble their efforts. Before long, war would become inevitable, and, as Carrafiello puts it, “Buchanan bears a large part of the blame because of his blunder in relying on the court.”
Seems pretty clear to me. The Constitution also empowers the government to admit new states. Imagine the dilemma of an escaped slave living in one of the territories of the U.S. and then, upon admission of that territory as a state, finding himself bundled up and shipped back to his owner.
To me it would appear that slave owners were empowered to re-capture slaves who escaped to U.S. territories and that the federal government had no power to interfere.
Is the baby inside you your "property" to do with as you please? Can you remove it, as you would an arm or leg, or a slave?
-PJ
I am no expert on the subject, but I doubt if one could argue successfully for a right to private ownership of heavy ordnance.
Both Buchanan and Taney were democrats
Vermont, our 14th state, was actually the first to make abolition law.
So I think they deserve a place of honor in this discussion.
jeffersondem: "And did you know that the 'abolition' of slavery which you claim occurred in Pennsylvania 'by the time of the 1787 Constitution Convention' was actually more like gradual emancipation."
Sure, it's why I chose my words carefully: abolition was law in all those states -- some accomplished abolition more rapidly than others.
jeffersondem: "By some accounts, the Pennsylvania law was written so that it was possible for a slave descendant to remain in slavery until 1848."
Here are the actual numbers: in 1790 the US had about 700,000 slaves, 94% in the South.
Of the 40,000 Northern slaves, 10% were held in Pennsylvania in 1790.
1840 was the last census reporting any Pennsylvania slaves -- 64.
Gradual abolition was the model expected and practiced by our Founders at the time of the 1787 Constitution Convention.
So the facts remain just as I posted: "by the time of the 1787 Constitution Convention abolition was law in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Abolition was also dictated by Congress in 1787 in what were then called the 'Northwest Territories' -- Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois & Wisconsin."
Further, five states including North Carolina allowed freed slaves to vote, meaning Crazy Roger Taney was completely out of his mind in his 1856 Dred Scott ruling.
My goodness you sound like a Democrat.
So why even pretend to be conservative?
The fact remains that if you think crazy Roger Taney was anything other than stark raving mad, then you are very, very confused, FRiend.
“A vote to “include” is not necessarily a vote to “enshrine”—your favorite spin word, apparently.”
The word “include” is a synonym for the word “enshrine.” Look it up.
en·shrine [inˈSHrÄ«n, enˈSHrÄ«n] VERB (be enshrined) place (a revered or precious object) in an appropriate receptacle. “relics are enshrined under altars” preserve (a right, tradition, or idea) in a form that ensures it will be protected and respected. “the right of all workers to strike was enshrined in the new constitution” synonyms: set down · set out · spell out · express · lay down · set in stone · embody · realize · manifest · incorporate · represent · contain · include · preserve · treasure · [more]
“So I think . . .”
Problem identified.
Naw, and you well know the truth of this matter, including:
But there are no quotes from Lincoln or anybody else saying that.
All the quotes we have talk about preserving the Union and abolishing slavery, not some alleged "money flow from Europe".
So you're just projecting your own ideas onto historical figures.
It seems that jeffersondem believes both Crazy Roger and Doughfaced Buchanan were perfectly rational human beings.
I disagree.
Right, Kentucky was Unionist by at least two to one, but that did not stop Confederates like Breckenridge from declaring secession or the Confederacy from accepting Kentucky as its 13th state.
Taney’s Ruling also went far beyond slavery/abolition, into ground where those of African descent and free could not be citizens, could not become citizens, and could not have recognized human rights.
It is also a far different thing to say that a slave had no place within the nation where he could “tag” to evade ownership, from saying that an owner willingly conveying the slave to a place known to prohibit slavery could pay no heed to the local laws - and further, that someone no longer bound to slavery could not, nor anyone on their behalf, protest an attempt to reassert the ownership.
Iirc Menken was, like Roger Taney, a Marylander, which may help explain why he so quickly dismisses the self-determination of four million slaves.
But more to your point, saying it was "all about" Southern self-determination is like claiming WWII was all about, say, Japanese self-determination.
Indeed, the Japanese threat to the U.S. homeland was orders of magnitude less than Confederates.
Consider this: "self-determination" also applied to Western Virginia, Eastern Tennessee, Northern Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Maryland, Pennsylvania and several other states which were, ahem, visited by Confederate armies.
bfl
Fugitive slaves by Federal law were not protected in any US state or territory.
William Tell: "To me it would appear that slave owners were empowered to re-capture slaves who escaped to U.S. territories and that the federal government had no power to interfere."
Fugitive slaves were constitutionally captured & returned from any US territory or state.
The issue here wasn't Federal "interference" but rather states' compliance with Federal law.
ML/NJ
Right, and that's the reason I refer to him as "Crazy Roger" -- because his ruling was not just contrary to what our Founders believed or intended, it was also insane.
Obviously it's never a matter for jeffersondem.
No need to look it up, thanks. I’ve been an editor for more than 40 years and am fluent in several languages.
“Include” is value-neutral. It simply means something was grouped with some other thing or things.
The word “enshirine” imparts a quasi-religious connotation—in this Constitutional case, an enshrinement would be with great patriotic feeling or certainty of its rightness, even righteousness.
While something “enshrined” can of course have been “included” with other things, something “included” is not necessarily “enshrined”— just merely included—in this case, acknowledging the prior opposition or reluctance of many of the stakeholders to such inclusion after a hard-fought compromise.
See the difference a little nuance makes?
The south was engaged in self-determinism when they turned their backs on their Constitution and countrymen. What they attempted was to force a unilateral (southern) determinism upon the entire continent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.