Posted on 04/29/2002 10:04:22 PM PDT by davidjquackenbush
When the US Constitution defined any person born in the United States a citizen, the Chief justice authored an opinion that blacks, free or slave, could never be citizens. How could he do that without denying that blacks were persons?
Taney was a man who was very fastidious about which Article the emergency powers fell in his Meryman circuit ruling in 1861. You would think he would have been just as fastidious in his Dred Scott ruling three years earlier. I can only assume that he did not see blacks as persons, a very common belief at the time. Unless of course, he was only carrying water for the slaveocracy as many at that time suggested about him.
-- A. Lincoln, in an address given in Washington D.C. (found in in Basler, Collected Works, Volume V, pages 371-375)
Just a few of my favorite quotes
******
You'll want to stop using this one.
Lincoln never said it.
It's from a novel, published in 1904 ... "The Clansman," by Tom Dixon
It depends on what the meaning of "person" is. I deliberately put that in the form of the notorius Clintonism (of which you recently spuriously accused me) but it isn't one. The word "person" has several senses and saying (rightly or wrongly) that someone is not a person is not necessariily the same thing as saying they are not a human.
"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
Lincoln may or may not have thought them equal, but he sure didn't think God made them to be slaves! Stephens, Davis, and the rest quite literally rejected Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Hamilton and the Declaration and the Constitution all so they could keep and expand slavery. Nice friends you have there CM.
I think Taney's imitators in Roe v Wade said something like that too, but is that what your really think? How can a "person" not be a "human"?
Jefferson may have been rhetorically consistent about the tariff, but his party took a different course when it was in power. What looked like tyrannical usurpations when Federalists ran the country were apt to be taken as wise efforts to secure greater independence from Britain when the Jeffersonians were in office. Like many another ex-President, Jefferson was more ideologically consistent after leaving office than he was -- or anyone could be -- in office.
Madison was a "moderate protectionist" as President. In 1816, Congress passed the first protective tariff with President Madison's approval. The 25% basic tariff was considered "moderate." In later years Madison supported the federal government during the tariff/nullification crisis of 1830. So he can't be numbered as a consistent opponent of protective tariffs.
As Chief Justice, William Howard Taft dealt with the constitutionality of the protective tariff in J.W. Hampton & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928). Part of his argument was that even the first Congress had listed "the encouragement and protection of manufactures" as a reason for legislation in its first tariff law. Those who sat in that first Congress included many who had worked out the Constitution and they recognized that promotion, protection and encouragement of industry was a valid power for the federal government implied by the Constitution.
Was the tariff a good idea for early 19th century America? Are tariffs ever a good idea? I don't know. But for many late 18th and early 19th century Americans a protective tariff was essential for the security and independence of the country.
One could survey American history and say that a national bank or tariffs or internal improvements were the first step towards tyranny. But it certainly took a long time to reach that goal. Was the growth of a massive federal bureaucracy a necessary result of the protective tariff? Could that growth of bureaucracy and regulation have been avoided if there had been no tariff? Did the fate of liberty really depend on the tariff question? And why did it take so long for the result?
One could just as well argue the other side and argue that the Jeffersonian policy would have meant a poorer, less united, more fractious and weaker America. It would also be possible to find support for that argument. The fate of the country under the Articles of Confederation would be a pretty good start. In the beginning of the republic any step taken would have had a wide variety of good and bad consequences which wouldn't always be easy to sort out.
Here it is:
"Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the negro and give him our language, literature, religion, and system of government under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can never do here. We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed of, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable."
-- A. Lincoln, in an address given in Washington D.C. (found in in Basler, Collected Works, Volume V, pages 371-375)
******
Lincoln never said it.
It's from a novel, published in 1904 ... "The Clansman," by Tom Dixon
Cheers,
Richard F.
p.s. I'm willing to wager that the moderator who deleted nearly half the posts here lives in one of the states that voted for lincoln in 1860 & gore in 2000. If not for the proud Southern conservatives who stand up for the truth & continue to post here in spite of the censorship, the whole country would desend into the miserable lincoln/gore cesspool. God Bless Dixie!
But in practice the parties were closer than in theory. The actual Whig Presidents didn't support Clay's ideal program. No Whig administration got very far in a program of public works. No Democratic administration would refrain from taking steps it felt essential to the country's survival. The Democrats also advocated special protection for select industries. A person of our era who wanted to know which party was more libertarian, and which more imperial would have a hard time judging, given the militaristic expansionism of the Democrats, and the pro-slavery attitudes of important wings of both parties.
Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, had himself been a Whig, as were other important Confederates. As so often in American politics, political affiliation had as much to do with interest groups and ethnic, class and regional identities as with ideology.
A lot of these arguments about Lincoln involve claims about what he thought or intended that we don't have the evidence to prove or disprove. We know that Lincoln supported a protective tariff and that Congress passed on once the rebellion had begun. We also know that Lincoln was an enthusiast for the tariff in his youth, seeing it as a means of promoting growth and opportunity. We also can see that he had little to say about the tariff during the late 1850s, his presidential campaign and his presidency, though he did discuss the topic with those who were very interested in the question. We can easily refute di Lorenzo's pathetic claim that Lincoln had very much to say about the tariff in the Lincoln-Douglas debates or that he was aggressively pushing the old Whig agenda in the seven debates with Douglas.
Probably, it would have been better for the country if the GOP had simply put the tariff issue aside in the interests of national unity. To be sure, this would have been more than their opponents were willing to do with their own interests and pet projects, but it would have made things much clearer for all of us. They did win the election, though, and elections usually do give winners more say than losers in policy questions. But one could argue that there was no true cross-sectional mandate for increased tariffs and that caution was necessary in the interests of the union.
But let's assume that the Republicans had followed this strategy and kept the tariff off the table after the election. Does anyone really think that this would have changed anything? South Carolina and the other six states were already resolved to go -- if they hadn't already gone. The tariff had little or nothing do do with their leaving, as their own declarations indicate. Four more states would join them once the war started. The tariff had nothing to do with their leaving. It wasn't that the tariff drove those states out. It was that their leaving made larger tariff increases possible than would otherwise have occured.
People will claim otherwise. I think it's just that they can't believe that the defense and expansion of slavery could have been as important an issue as it was. The only way to judge is to read as much of the contemporary record as you can and then judge. Here is one website to get you started. And here is another.
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.