Lincoln And Chief Justice Taney

[unionblue]

Friends,

Just finished reading Lincoln And Chief Justice Taney, Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers, by James F. Simon.

I was rather surprised by this book, as I thought it would be very critical of Chief Justice Taney (pronounced "Taw-ney.") and come down very hard on his handling of the Dred Scott case. My main surprise came from learning just how good and able Justice Taney was in the years leading up to this case and how he permitted his Southern heritage to lead him astray when he was so precise and strict in his prior supreme court cases.

If anyone things Lincoln gets a clean bill of health in this book, they'll be surprised how the author handles the late President over the handling of the Vallandigham case and other cases concerning civil liberties and the Lincoln administration during the war.

I was very much interested in getting a new perspective on both Dred Scott and Lincoln's war powers. The book provided that and more. I liked the background given for both men and how they came to their conclusions concerning states rights, slavery, and the constitution. The book covers many other subjects, including consciptions, greenbacks, censorship and the actions of the supreme court during the war.

All-in-all, a very good read with some new facts on both men and the times that I was not aware of.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[elektratig]

UnionBlue,

As usual, you're ahead of me. Thanks for the review.

Can you clarify one point? Is Simon saying that Dred Scott was itself a good opinion, or that, despite Dred Scott, Taney was generally a good judge?

If he is saying the latter, I think that's consistent with the general consensus. Taney is generally given high marks, with Dred Scott seen as a glaring exception.

If on the other hand, Simon is saying that Dred Scott itself was a good opinion (in the sense of well-reasoned and consistent with precedents of the time), I'd have to differ.

Happy New Year!

[unionblue]

elektratig,

You hit the ol' Taney nail right on the head. Simon is saying that up until Dred Scott, Taney was a superior Supreme Court Justice, admired by both Whigs, Democrats and Republicans. It was only his Dred Scott debacle that tarnished his image as an impartial judge basing his opinions solely on the law.

Simon states that he let his Southern leanings, along with his states rights and slavery background get the better of him on this one. He also had a hard time with Lincoln because of the latters strong union stance and his desire to restrict slavery.

Like I said, the book is a good read and gives much background on the two men which helps the reader understand where both men came from and how they formed their views.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[samgrant]

Haven't read that one Neil, but I'd be glad to add it to my "pile o books".

I wonder if anyone out there has read Lincoln's Constitution by Daniel ****er?

I was somewhat interested in the Lincoln/Taney book, but feared it may be too restricted to those 2 individuals and the Dred Scott Decision, so was looking for something similar concerning Lincoln, as politician and president, and the law and the conflicts and controversies which arose out of that. So I ordered this book, instead of the Taney book.

Wonder how these 2 books might compliment and/or contrast each other?

F-A-R-B-E-R (this Censor thing is getting very irritating!!!)

[unionblue]

samgrant,

I have that one too, (Lincoln's Constitution). Excellent book and well worth adding to your personal library. In fact, I would get this book before the one on Taney and Lincoln, as it covers more Constitutional ground.

Enjoy,
Unionblue

[J_Man0507]

I very much enjoyed reading Lincoln and Taney, and found it highly informative. I am especially glad that it did not seem that Simon was not incredibly partial to either Lincoln or Taney. Taney was an extremely intelligent man who toward the end of his tenure as Chief Justice let his sympathies toward the South cloud his thinking. I also found that some of his views and opinions from during his days with President Jackson contradict later decisions made while he was on the USSC. (If anybody wants more, on those, let me know. I'll be glad to go back and find them, seeing as it has been six months since I read the book.)

One thing that did disappoint me was some of the facts he gave pertaining to a few of the battles mentioned. He seemed to class all casualties as killed. For example, it seemed that he was saying that there were 50,000 men killed at Gettysburg alone, which is not true; that was the approximate casualty count, including KIA, WIA and captured. That may be just me being nitpicky (ok, so it is ) but I can be that way; I am a stickler for getting it right.

But other than that, it was a most excellent read and should be added to every Lincoln scholars and enthusiasts shelf.