Posted on 08/23/2025 4:28:03 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
I think it’s aged very well considering you are groveling for obscure quotes from lunatics such as Baldwin. Typical of you Neo confederates.
Henry Baldwin wasn’t any great legal thinker. He was an ambitious climber, who made a career in business and politics before becoming a judge. His half-brother, Abraham Baldwin, went south and became a big man in Georgia, founder of the state university, signer of the Constitution, and Senator. Another brother entered Ohio politics.
Henry Baldwin wasn’t a stodgy, snotty Yankee. Although he was a Yale man and of Puritan ancestry, his father was a blacksmith. Baldwin left Connecticut for Pennsylvania and would have been considered a man of the Middle States or even a Westerner.
Baldwin had been active in the American Colonization Society early on. Did that mean that he was anti-slavery, or in favor of white supremacy, or something else altogether. in the very same decision where he called the compromise on slavery the foundation of our political system he also called slavery abhorrent. He was on record in many decisions saying that slaves were property rather than people and was the only justice to dissent in the Amistad case. Even Roger Taney was willing to let the rebellious enslaved Africans go free, but Baldwin wasn’t.
The difference between what Alexander Stephens said and what Henry Baldwin wrote is significant. For Alexander Stephens, slavery was the cornerstone of society, even of civilization, and definitely of the new Confederate nation. For Baldwin, it wasn’t slavery itself, but the compromises on slavery that was the foundation, not of society or civilization, but of the union. Without the compromises the country would split apart.
It’s been common here for some to condemn opponents of slavery for being gradualist and making compromises and celebrate supporters of slavery as honest, steadfast, principled men. But no, those who opposed abolition accepted slavery, sometimes reluctantly, sometimes enthusiastically and tailored their views to fit the “peculiar institution.” If Baldwin had stuck by his earlier view that slavery was morally wrong, he would have been led to make compromises and concessions, and accept gradualist half-measures to change things, but he’d already made his moral compromise with slavery by accepting it whole.
It wasn’t only the union or the Constitution that Baldwin was concerned about. It was also his party and his own political career. He was appointed by his friend Andrew Jackson because he was a reliable vote for everything Jackson believed, and his own fate was tied with that of Jackson and his party — the Democrats. It might also be that he saw in slavery a way for people like himself and his half-brother to rise in the world.
Like secessionists Keitt, Wigfall, and Ruffin, Baldwin was very eccentric, perhaps insane. He was committed to an asylum for a year and didn’t participate in court decisions that year. For more:
https://newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/crazy-henry-baldwin-the-mentally-ill-supreme-court-justice/
Thanks for the excellent summation.
I don't know if that statement is true but for the purpose of this post let's stipulate your statement is true: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Henry Baldwin left scant impact on the law.
That is remarkable for you to say in the context of his declaration in Johnson v Thompkins that slavery was the “corner stone” of the United States Constitution.
I would have thought you might have suggested Baldwin was insane for such a finding and cite ten things to prove him wrong.
I am surprised you have not provided ten high sources of contemporaneous credibility that argued Supreme Court Justice Baldwin (a Connecticut-born opponent of slavery) had hijacked the anti-slavery U.S. Constitution and made it into a pro-slavery Constitution.
Did President Andrew Jackson rail against Baldwin for his “corner stone” declaration and demand his impeachment?
Did still-living former President John Quincy Adams rail against Baldwin and demand his impeachment or at least denounce the ruling?
Are there records showing subsequent presidents Martin Van Buren, William Harrison and John Tyler denounced Baldwin and his “corner stone” statement?
Do you know if Presidents Fillmore, Pierce, or Buchanan went on record as saying “Baldwin was wrong on the corner stone thing.”
President Lincoln was clear in his support of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the Constitution. What did Lincoln say about Baldwin's corner stone finding?
Probably nothing. Because as you say Baldwin's corner stone finding had scant impact on the existing law, the existing Constitution or existing public opinion. Baldwin's finding of the corner stone didn't cause a ripple because at the time it was accepted as true even if objectionable.
In fact, Baldwin expressed disgust with the existing slavery status quo as do I; I condemn slavery in the strongest possible terms.
The “foundation” reference was pretty obscure. I don’t find references to it in books about the time. It wasn’t an actual legal principle, so much as a pragmatic counsel. Had Baldwin said or written what he did 20 years later, it might have provoked some reaction, but the issue of slavery was on the back burner then, and by the time it was the burning issue, he was already dead.
Somebody writing for the neo-Confederate Abbeville Institute’s website dug Baldwin’s foundation quote up as a source for Alexander Stephens’ “Cornerstone Speech” and ignored the real differences between the two metaphors. If Baldwin influenced Stephens, it would have been pretty trivial and Stephens would have missed Baldwin’s point.
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/the-so-called-cornerstone-speech/
Did Baldwin really deplore slavery as much as he claimed? We’ll never know. Slavery was the abortion issue of the day: it was convenient for a Northern politician to profess to be personally opposed to slavery while also opposed to ever doing anything about it. Do we call such people anti-slavery or anti-abortion, or do we just call them opportunists who duck the issue? Whatever Baldwin thought about Indians and expelling them to west of the Mississippi, he didn’t think the court should to anything about that either.
“Slavery was the abortion issue of the day: it was convenient for a Northern politician to profess to be personally opposed to slavery while also opposed to ever doing anything about it.”
You make a good point.
It helps to explain why 13 of the original 13 slave states voted to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution.
No doubt there were many in the northern states that didn’t like slavery and only voted to put it into the Constitution because it was in their own economic and political best self interest.
We forget how mercenary northern Puritans were. From the “Won Cause Myths” we are only told the north “fought to free the slaves.”
Again, you make a good point.
You know what I think. They were cynically exploiting the issue for power and personal profit. (Which came from having power. Look at Pelosi and Ilahn Ohmar.)
They put it in because there would not have been a united nation without it. The Constitution was a tough sell as it was. Without slavery it would be impossible. But even pro slavery men then saw slavery as a very marginal economic proposition and believed it would be eliminated at some point in the future. The cotton gin and upland cotton changed the economics of slavery and led to the eventual clash of regions. But in 1788/89 they didn’t vote for it because they wanted it. They voted for it to keep the nation unified.
Insisting otherwise shows your ignorance of history.
Many had a Black problem. White labor did not want competition from slave labor. In general White’s did not want Blacks as equals in their society. Freeing the slaves was one problem; what to do with them after that was another.
You think everybody anti-slavery was exploiting the issue. I was speaking about people who claimed to be appalled by slavery but did nothing to oppose it. There were plenty of people like that in the South as well as in the North. We gave Thomas Jefferson or Robert E. Lee brownie points for opposing slavery when they did nothing at all to oppose it.
Wha?
User X,
This is entirely nonsensical. "did nothing" does not match the historical record.
We have multiple instances of legislative attempts or legislative successes in regard to anti-slavery measures - at least with (the you named) Thomas Jefferson. I could not care less about the Civil War navel gazing.
Here is the problem. The idea that the only measure of someone's life is to say whether or not they did or did not own slaves and the rest of the picture is irrelevant is the kind of thing that is right out of The 1619 Project playbook.
Benjamin Franklin was President of an abolitionist organization. But of course that's irrelevant. He owned slaves.
John Jay tried twice. First failed, then the second time succeeded, at actually abolishing slavery in New York. But of course that's irrelevant. He owned slaves.
Thomas Jefferson tried legislating slavery out in the House of Burgesses during British rule. How is this doing nothing? After Independence, Jefferson succeeding in making the original abolitionist idea of abolishing the slave trade which all the abolitionists thought would put an end to slavery. How is this doing nothing? These are actual actions. It is literally something. How do you say actions equal non-actions? How does action = non-action? How?
It.
Doesn't.
Make.
Any.
Sense.
These ideas are pure, pure anti-Americanism. It just is. We need to start recognizing that our Founding Fathers did actually make moves, including legal moves in regard to either outright abolishing, or also winding down slavery.
Nobody ever actually says these anti-slavery things never happened. They did happen, people just ignore them. WHY?
Not everybody. I think there were some hard core abolitionists that believed it was morally wrong and who actually cared about black people.
But I believe they were way outnumbered by the exploiters.
I was speaking about people who claimed to be appalled by slavery but did nothing to oppose it.
There were a lot of them.
There were plenty of people like that in the South as well as in the North.
I would expect they had a harder time of it in the South than people would in the North.
Opposing slavery in the South could get you killed or beaten. This reminds me of a funny story.
Years ago I and some others founded a gun rights group. We were a political group, and we had a lot of success. One of our members was a doctor, and he was a firebrand. Absolutely uncompromising. One day I asked him if he had ever done anything for the pro-life movement. He said he did, but it got too dangerous and he had to stop.
I asked "What did you do?" He said "I put pro-life stickers on the mail I sent out." And I said "and that was dangerous?"
He said "Yeah. People were breaking into my office, stealing my records, bashing my car windows in, leaving threatening phone calls... it was terrible. I had to stop doing it." I asked him where all this happened, and he said he was practicing in West Virginia.
His claims puzzled me for months. I didn't get it. I had never heard of such a reaction to some pro-life stickers.
Now the Doctor was from South Africa, and he didn't really have any familiarity with American demographics or customs or anything.
Some months later, he told me he would be gone for a week or so. He said he was a professional witness for a court case involving a medical situation. I asked him how long he had been doing it? He said "Oh, ever since I had that practice set up in West Virginia. Part of my practice was evaluating medical claims for the mining companies. I would testify against miners making claims against the company."
I said "You were testifying against members of the Mine Workers Union?" He said "Yes." I said, "did this happen to coincide with the time you were putting pro-life stickers on your mail? " He said "Yes."
I told him "You were lucky to get out of there alive." The Mine Workers Union is one of the most vicious and dangerous Unions in the United States. They play hardball. "
"You were testifying against members of the Mine Workers Union, and you thought it was the pro-life stickers causing you trouble? "
:)
We gave Thomas Jefferson or Robert E. Lee brownie points for opposing slavery when they did nothing at all to oppose it.
Thomas Jefferson is probably responsible, more than anyone else, for actually ending slavery. Of course his contribution was at little cost to himself, but none the less he probably had a greater impact on abolishing it than anyone else in US history.
As for Robert E. Lee, I really don't know much about him. I actually know more about Nathan Bedford Forest than I do Robert E. Lee. I know Lee opposed slavery on moral grounds, and he taught Sunday School to slave children. That's about it.
Because it helps them in making their Neo-Confederate nonsense arguments?
User X does not make "Neo-Confederate nonsense arguments" that I see.(I don't read all of these CW posts in depth; so its said) Maybe I made a mistake??
How is completely ignoring verifiable anti-slavery actions helpful outside of the "Neo-Confederate mindset"?
First, they were 80 years apart in time. Lee was 16 years old when Jefferson died. Second, in 1787, Jefferson wrote the Northwest Ordinance which was approved by the congress under the articles. It outlawed slavery in the territories North of the Ohio River. That was a bold move at the time, but it was approved of by the first congress in 1789.
Lee never owned slaves until his Father in law died and he inherited his slaves with the proviso that they all be freed by a certain date. Lee kept the slaves working and didn’t free them until the last possible moment.
“They (northern Founders) put it (slavery) in (United States Constitution) because there would not have been a united nation without it.”
That is an interesting comment.
Maybe they thought a united nation would have secure borders.
Maybe they thought secure borders would protect against military invasion.
Maybe they thought securing against military invasion would promote political stability.
Maybe they thought political stability would promote economic prosperity.
Maybe they thought including slavery would be in their own economic and political best self interest.
Fair enough on Thomas Jefferson and the Northwest Ordinance. I didn’t mention Jay or Franklin. I was thinking of the older Jefferson, who forgot his earlier convictions.
Good point on the Northwest Ordinance. I was thinking more of the older Jefferson for the last 20 years of his life.
Yeah, that Franklin guy was really amazing.
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.