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.”
This niggling snipe-hunt is a favorite ploy of demojeff...
For many years I have regarded Buchanan as the worst President ever. It’s hard to top paving the way to the Civil War.
Buchanan also wanted to admit Kansas into the Union under the pro-slave Lecompton Constitution, but Congress didn’t go along - barely.
“But more to your point, saying it was “all about” Southern self-determination”
Who said that? Surely you’re not deliberately misquoting me.
“is like claiming WWII was all about, say, Japanese self-determination.”
A truly ridiculous assertion.
“Indeed, the Japanese threat to the U.S. homeland was orders of magnitude less than Confederates.”
The intent of the Confederacy was to secede: that is, to withdraw from the United States, as was their right. Lincoln refused to allow that, which was the casus belli.
Japan, on the other hand, was engaged in a bloody war of conquest. There is no comparison, and I’m frankly disappointed to see that argument advanced on Free Republic.
“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.”
States? Lots of errors in that paragraph. Oklahoma and New Mexico were not states during the civil war. The southern states *voted* to secede. Thus, western Virginia and other regions of those states were not denied participation in democracy: they just lost the vote.
Before you start “ahemming” about Confederate armies, you might reflect that William Tecumseh Sherman would be tried for war crimes and hanged if he did today what he did during Lincoln’s war.
“The south was engaged in self-determinism when they turned their backs on their Constitution and countrymen.”
It was common practice for states to reserve to themselves the right to withdraw from the Constitution. They only ratified the Constitution on that condition.
“What they attempted was to force a unilateral (southern) determinism upon the entire continent.”
Nonsense. If Lincoln had not decided to make war, there would have been no war.
There's only one way out of the union - the same way they got in. And that is by mutual accord. Unilateral secession has never been legal.
dsc: "Who said that?
Surely you’re not deliberately misquoting me."
You posted an HL Menken quote without comment, including:
dsc: "The intent of the Confederacy was to secede: that is, to withdraw from the United States, as was their right.
Lincoln refused to allow that, which was the casus belli.
Japan, on the other hand, was engaged in a bloody war of conquest.
There is no comparison, and I’m frankly disappointed to see that argument advanced on Free Republic."
Noooo. The causus beli was first, the Confederates' attack on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter and second, the Confederate Congress' formal declaration of war against the United States, May 6, 1861.
Further, what you like to call "secede" or "withdraw" is more accurately described as conquest and invasion of such states as Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia and even Kansas, plus US territories of Oklahoma, New Mexico & Arizona, not to mention Confederate army invasions or raids into Pennsylvania, Ohio & Indiana.
Can you name for us even one state where a single Japanese soldier (let alone army) invaded, or raided, for even one day?
dsc: "States?
Lots of errors in that paragraph.
Oklahoma and New Mexico were not states during the civil war."
Which means Confederate invasions there had nothing to do with "self-determination", only with a bloody war of military conquest.
dsc: "The southern states *voted* to secede.
Thus, western Virginia and other regions of those states were not denied participation in democracy: they just lost the vote."
West Virginia also voted to secede.
By what law or logic do you hold Virginia's secession valid, but not West Virginia's?
By what logic was it A-OK for Confederates to send forces commanded by RE Lee into seceding West Virginia, but not for the Union to send forces into seceding Virginia?
dsc: "Before you start “ahemming” about Confederate armies, you might reflect that William Tecumseh Sherman would be tried for war crimes and hanged if he did today what he did during Lincoln’s war."
No more so than any number of Confederate generals who invaded Union states.
The burning of Chambersburg, PA, (three times: 1862, 1863 & 1864!) comes to mind, as does the Lawrence, Kansas, Massacre in August 1863).
Remember this: Confederate armies in Union regions always grabbed whatever black freedmen they could for return & sale in Confederate slave markets.
So who, exactly, was guilty of "war crimes"?
Would it be a stretch to say that “nuance” and “spin” are synonymous? J.Effersondem is all about putting a little English on the ball. He has come to be known as a spinning ballerina. I am waiting for the day when he acknowledges that the U.S. Constitution also “enshrined” Free States, i.e., States where blacks were free. Ya know, those States (probably mostly up North) that the Fugitive Slaves ran to.
“There’s only one way out of the union - the same way they got in. And that is by mutual accord. Unilateral secession has never been legal.”
That only became law at Appomattox. Prior to that it was assumed that states entered the Union voluntarily, and could leave at their discretion.
“Seems to me the key issue Menken identified was “self-determination”.
You disagree?”
Mencken was discussing self-determination. He did not say that Lincoln’s war was “all about” that single issue.
“Noooo. The causus beli was first, the Confederates’ attack on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter and second, the Confederate Congress’ formal declaration of war against the United States, May 6, 1861.”
Fake news, fake history. Lincoln committed several acts of war prior to Sumpter, which the intellectually honest reader of history must accept.
“Further, what you like to call “secede” or “withdraw” is more accurately described as conquest and invasion”
Utter horseshit.
“By what law or logic do you hold Virginia’s secession valid, but not West Virginia’s?”
By the same law and logic that leads me to reject “Palestinian” claims. There *was* no West Virginia, no political or legal entity with a right to reject Virginia law, any more than eastern Oklahoma today has standing to set aside Oklahoma law.
“By what logic was it A-OK for Confederates to send forces commanded by RE Lee into seceding West Virginia, but not for the Union to send forces into seceding Virginia?”
Boy, you are really the king of the false moral equivalence, aren’t you? Surely I don’t have to explain this.
“No more so than any number of Confederate generals who invaded Union states.”
Oh, yes, more so. Much more so. All the alleged Confederate atrocities together don’t approach what Sherman did on his march to the sea.
“Remember this: Confederate armies in Union regions always grabbed whatever black freedmen they could for return & sale in Confederate slave markets.”
You know, even though slavery is a moral evil, black slavery in America is not the worst thing that ever happened on the face of the earth. Sherman’s murders of women and children were a worse crime than returning some blacks to slavery.
“So who, exactly, was guilty of “war crimes”?”
Sherman. And, after the fact, those who rewrite history.
No one assumed that - certainly not the Founders.
“No one assumed that - certainly not the Founders.”
They absolutely assumed it. The states would never have joined the union without explicit guarantees.
And yet they did.
“And yet they did.”
I’m sure you wouldn’t deliberately speak out of ignorance.
Go find out. The guarantees are in the original documents.
Then you are just the person to ask: What is another English word for synonym?
“There’s only one way out of the union - the same way they got in. And that is by mutual accord.”
That’s not what Abraham Lincoln said.
Please point out an “explicit guarantee” of unilateral withdrawal from the union.
“Lincoln committed several acts of war prior to Sumter.”
The State of South Carolina committed an act of war against the United States before Lincoln was inaugurated as President. Confederate forces fired on the United States flagged ship Star of the West before Lincoln was sworn in as President.
“Sherman murdered of women and children were worst crimes”.
Cite a verifiable historical source for that statement. Otherwise it is so much “Lost Cause” flatulence.
I’m just devastated by such cleverness. My entire career, for naught. An anonymous keyboardist knows better than I. Might as well end it all.
“I’m just devastated by such cleverness. My entire career, for naught. An anonymous keyboardist knows better than I. Might as well end it all.”
Don’t do it. I didn’t intend to break your will to live.
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.