Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The President Behind the U.S. Supreme Court’s Worst Decision
Ozy.com ^ | 10/16/2018 | Sean Braswell

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.”


TOPICS: History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: civilwar; democraticparty; dickinsoncollege; dredscott; godsgravesglyphs; jamesbuchanan; jimcrow; kukluxklan; milhist; missouricompromise; pennsylvania; robertcoopergrier; rogertaney; slavecatchers; slavery
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-139 next last
Roger Taney generally gets the blame for Dred Scott, but President Buchanan and the Democrat Party lobbying were behind it.
1 posted on 10/20/2018 7:40:49 PM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Dred Scott decision text at:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933t.html


2 posted on 10/20/2018 7:43:04 PM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Anytime someone wants to argue precedent and stare decisis, drop Dred Scott on them.


3 posted on 10/20/2018 7:46:33 PM PDT by Lurkinanloomin (Natural Born Citizen Means Born Here of Citizen Parents__Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

History of the Dred Scott v. Sandford suit at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford


4 posted on 10/20/2018 7:49:41 PM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Great article. Thanks for posting.

Nowadays, I’m always skeptical of what I read, but this piece rings true. It certainly makes me want to know more about the times, what happened and why. The “why” is always the part of which to be skeptical.


5 posted on 10/20/2018 7:52:43 PM PDT by be-baw (still seeking...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: be-baw
Chief Justice Taney hoped that he was avoiding secession and civil war by settling the contentious slavery issue in favor of slave owners. In fact, he only enraged free state men. Democrats were attempting to introduce slavery into every state.

As Lincoln said in 1858: "A house divided against itself, cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South. "

6 posted on 10/20/2018 8:01:40 PM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin

And Plessy v. Ferguson (”separate but equal = OK!!)


7 posted on 10/20/2018 8:03:03 PM PDT by Bulldaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
That seems to be an excellent summary and reveals things I never learned in history.

Some things never change...
“He foolishly believed the Supreme Court could do what Congress and the presidency had not -- provide a final solution to the slavery abortion question.”

8 posted on 10/20/2018 8:03:45 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

It always baffled me as to how my hometown could have produced two men who went to Washington, DC, and had completely different worldviews. Buchanan and Congressman Thadeus Stevens. The former a Democrat and the latter a Republican. But, who both called Lancaster “home”. It would be very interesting to visit the era and locale where both men lived in such close proximity.


9 posted on 10/20/2018 8:05:11 PM PDT by Thumper1960 (Trump-2020)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

Yes, Roe v. Wade is often compared to the Dred Scott decision.


10 posted on 10/20/2018 8:06:09 PM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
This is why I get leary of those ‘worst President’ threads .Most of us don't know enough about the 44 who have held office to make a truly informed decision. That said , starting the Republican/Democrat war makes Buchanan a good candidate for the worst President .
11 posted on 10/20/2018 8:09:28 PM PDT by Nateman (If the left is not screaming, you are doing it wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Clarification please: what were “ free state men.”?


12 posted on 10/20/2018 8:14:40 PM PDT by be-baw (still seeking...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nateman

Buchanan was Obama class bad.


13 posted on 10/20/2018 8:21:34 PM PDT by arrogantsob ("Chaos and Mayhem" at Amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: be-baw

Men from non-slavery states.


14 posted on 10/20/2018 8:23:05 PM PDT by arrogantsob ("Chaos and Mayhem" at Amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

Thanks SOB! Gotta love your handle...


15 posted on 10/20/2018 8:26:55 PM PDT by be-baw (still seeking...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Nateman

Also makes me wonder if the same family of deep staters were working back then, too. Probably easier to find out now, eh? Nothing new under the sun, especially when it comes to evil.


16 posted on 10/20/2018 8:36:38 PM PDT by huldah1776 ( Vote Pro-life! Allow God to bless America before He avenges the death of the innocent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

This article is useless without also mentioning the Vice President.

John C Breckinridge !

Who split the democrat party in two?

John C Breckinridge !

Who led the rump democrat part on the election?

John C Breckinridge !

Who came in second in the electoral college?

John C Breckinridge !

Who’s States left the Union rather than suffer a split government with the Republicans (dems controlled the Senate and the Courte)?

John C Breckinridge !

Who was removed from the Senate (appointed by a State after losing) for treason?

John C Breckinridge !

Who became a (bad) Confederatw general?

John C Breckinridge !

Who bungled the Confederate attack in Baton Rouge?

John C Breckinridge !


17 posted on 10/20/2018 8:48:56 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad ("the media are selling you a line of soap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin

Yep.

It IS the Stare Decisis killer all by itself.


18 posted on 10/20/2018 9:11:43 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
History. Repeating itself again? There was/is? an elementary school named after him in my old home town but

I don't remember ever learning about him. So, I was curious. Found resources at Dickinson's site but HAVE to share this...

hope you don't mind the size and of course I was thinking of GW and Obama, but now knowing about the deep state, don't know if any of them were truly good.



19 posted on 10/20/2018 9:26:06 PM PDT by huldah1776 ( Vote Pro-life! Allow God to bless America before He avenges the death of the innocent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
Many of our Founders were slave holders. It is absolute nonsense to believe that the Constitution they authored somehow included the end of slavery. It took an extra-constitutional civil war to force the southern states into accepting the Thirteenth Amendment.

Similarly, it is absolute nonsense to believe that that same Constitution contains within it the authority of the national government to mandate that the states permit the killing of unborn babies.

The original intent of the Constitution was that slaves were property. The original intent of the Constitution was that the federal government had no authority to mandate nation-wide protection for abortion.

It's really not all that complicated. It only seems so because so many people deny what I am claiming above and wish the Supreme Court to make stuff up.

20 posted on 10/20/2018 9:28:26 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-139 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson