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.”
I’m amazed from time to time of the, uhm, unique scholarship that can be found at FreeRepublic.
This is the second person, out of the dozens of historians and thousands of posters I’ve studied, who believes that the United States Constitution contained a secret snare which forced slavery upon a horrified citizenry.
EVERY historian and virtually every poster participating on WBTS threads knows that certain compromises were written into the constitution in order to placate slave states. But no one ever doubted that states that desired to be free had every right to do so. And similarly, every state that wished to embrace slavery had that right. At least until Scott v. Sanford when taney upturned the history of our very nation and declared that the wording of the Constitution compelled every state to endure slavery. Like it or not.
Either we were tricked by a diabolical monster who inserted language into the document - which was later revealed by the super-prescient taney, or the constitution held meaning that the Founders (and every historian since) recognized, but taney ignored.
I guess you learn something new everyday...
(FTR, I've never lived south of Long Island, NY, but I've obviously read a lot more history than you have.)
ML/NJ
Indeed, one point of this thread is to raise the question: how much was Taney influenced by Doughfaced Democrat President Buchanan and how much was just Taney's innate insanity emerging after years of distinguished service?
My guess is the two Democrats but buddies encouraged & enhanced each other's craziness.
We should also notice here that in concurring with Crazy Roger, Justices Nelson & Grier (Democrats from NY & PA) refused to endorse Taney's insane theory that blacks could not be citizens, but instead simply affirmed Missouri's right to declare a slave freed, or not freed.
Finally in his dissent, your fellow New Jersian, Republican Justice McLean (along with Massachusetts' Curtis) noted that, at the time of the Constitution Convention in 1787, five states (including North Carolina) allowed freed blacks to vote.
Add them up: of the five Northern justices, only one -- Buchanan's PA buddy Catron -- concurred in Crazy Roger's insanity.
Of course all four Southern justices concurred.
So any notion that Chief Justice Taney (encouraged by President Buchanan) was anything other than stark raving insane seems to me beyond dispute.
You disagree?
ml/nj: "I've never lived south of Long Island, NY, but I've obviously read a lot more history than you have."
I doubt that, unless you classify Lost Causer mythology as "history".
But speaking of Doughfaced Northerners, have you looked at yourself in the mirror lately?
The time you spent spot-welding Vermont into a discussion of the 13 original states would have been better spent reading, rather than skimming, my post.
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. By some accounts, the Pennsylvania law was written so that it was possible for a slave descendant to remain in slavery until 1848.
Puritans called it “philanthropy at bargain prices.”
Leave me alone. You've disqualified yourself.
ML/NJ
They were right to do anything possible, everything possible, to prevent the looming disaster.
That is his home State, not the States he led. This is who he led into rebellion.
One
“At the Democratic National Convention held in Institute Hall in Charleston, South Carolina, in April 1860, 51 Southern Democrats walked out over a platform dispute. The extreme pro-slavery “Fire-Eater” William Lowndes Yancey and the Alabama delegation first left the hall, followed by the delegates of Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, three of the four delegates from Arkansas, and one of the three delegates from Delaware.”
Two
“The Democrats convened again at the Front Street Theater in Baltimore, Maryland, on June 18. This time, 110 Southern delegates (led by “Fire-Eaters”) walked out when the convention would not adopt a resolution supporting extending slavery into territories whose voters did not want it. “
Three
“The Charleston bolters reconvened in Richmond, Virginia on June 11... now accompanied by nearly all other Southern delegates... They adopted the pro-slavery platform rejected at Charleston, and nominated Vice President John C. Breckinridge for President, and Senator Joseph Lane from Oregon for Vice President”
“But the historical fact is that Lincoln did not in this speech, or anywhere else, ever propose to “start war” to abolish slavery.”
If what you say is true, we can forever dismiss the notion that Lincoln and the North fought to “free the slaves.”
But fight they did. And probably for a very good reason: they thought it was in their economic and political best self interest.
“. . . encouraged & enhanced each other’s craziness.”
“We should also notice here that in concurring with Crazy Roger . . .”
“. . . concurred in Crazy Roger's insanity.”
“So any notion that Chief Justice Taney (encouraged by President Buchanan) was anything other than stark raving insane . . .”
". . . show the world how crazy you & Roger both are/were.”
". . . not what you or Crazy Roger suppose they might have meant.”
". . . the kinds of opinions Crazy Roger enshrined in Dred Scott.”
"That makes Crazy Roger's claims otherwise, by definition, pure insanity . . .”
". . . until Crazy Roger legislated those things from the Supreme Court's bench.”
“Crazy Roger's excuse is simple insanity.”
“All seven justices voting for Crazy Roger's Dred Scott ruling were . . .”
“So when Crazy Roger Taney ruled that Congress had no authority . . .”
". . . an authority which Crazy Roger Taney singlehandedly abolished . . .”
“. . . Cracy Roger's ruling P.O.’d a lot of Northerners . . .”
". . . Crazy Roger's “logic” was complete nonsense . . .”
“. . .which sounds like the “logic” of Crazy Rober’s Dred Scott ruling.”
“. . . notion come from that Crazy Roger was anything other than stark raving mad??”
In the last eight hours a disturbing condition has manifested. Eight hours.
Their father, the Deceiver, was alive and fully operational at the time. And still is.
And the treasonous Breckenridge did try to get Kentucky to secede, he just failed in his efforts.
“Realizing that neutrality was becoming less and less feasible, six prominent Kentuckians met to find some solution for a state caught in the middle of a conflict.
Governor Magoffin, John C. Breckinridge, and Richard Hawes represented the secessionists’ position,
while Crittenden, Archibald Dixon, and S. S. Nicholas advocated the Northern cause.[18]
The sextet agreed only to continue the doctrine of neutrality, however, and called for the formation of a five-member board to coordinate the Commonwealth’s defense.[19]
The General Assembly created the board on May 24 and vested in it supervision of the state’s military, a power reserved in the Kentucky Constitution for the governor.”
I don't think "intent of the Constitution" should be the precise terminology here. More like the "effect" of the Constitution. The Framers argued vigorously over the slave vs free question, and the decision to continue to allow slavery (although the importation of slaves was to be discontinued by law in 1808) was regarded as a compromise in order to secure the agricultural southern states into the Union for the common defense—needed to keep England from reasserting itself over the U.S.
The southern states were major exporters to Europe, which greatly wanted timber, textiles and other southern products. The slaves were necessary to the production of agricultural products until the Industrial Revolution in the latter half of the 19th century; the fledgling country struggled over labor costs just as today's fat cats want to force this nation to accept illegal immigration and Hb1 visas so we can compete globally against nations in which the workers are little better than slaves—a situation Trump is trying to address by adjusting trade regulations).
Back to the Constitutional Convention days — certainly slavery ran afoul of the sentiments of the Quakers of Philadelphia who were greatly influential over the Founders, as well as the delegates from the Methodists (a labor movement), the Puritans, and several other denominations populating the northern colonies. If slavery was their "intent", it was only very reluctantly so.
I see what you did there. But even though it was legal in all colonies, it was not equally practiced or “appreciated” everywhere.
LOLs, rockrr!
Great put-down of the unique scholarship, BroJoeK!
Even though slavery may not have been equal in all of the original 13 slave states, when the time came everyone of the 13 states voted to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution.
Some of the northern states may have even had qualms about voting to enshrine slavery into the constitution because of a deep belief that human bondage was morally wrong. Still, the original northern states all voted not just to include slavery in the constitution, but to include an amendment process that would make the peaceful abolition of slavery all but impossible short term.
But the northern states voted for slavery for a good reason: it was in their economic and political best self-interest.
H. L. Mencken wrote:
“The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of every day. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination—that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.”
Interesting that you should point out that one of the purposes of the Constitution was to support Militias. Does this mean that the interpretation that heavy arms should be reserved for “a well regulated militia” and that lighter arms are suited for individual hunters and home owners is the correct one?
The "Militias" were not a creation of the Constitution. They were made up of people from the various states. In order to insure that they be "well-regulated", that is proper functioning, the federal government was prohibited from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. ALL arms, not just "light arms". Private citizens at the time could be owners of perhaps the most powerful weapon of the time, the equivalent of a warship armed with cannon.
The existence of a standing army is no substitute for state Militias armed by the people of the various states. It was a standing army that occupied Boston prior to the Revolutionary War and the Second Amendment was ratified to insure that future Militias could prevent the central government from using such an army to tyrannize the people.
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.
