Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Neil, you wanted to know the composition of the Supreme Court at Mr. Lincoln's election. Here ya go, old chum...circa 1861
Chief Justice - Roger B. Taney, Maryland
Assoc Justice - John McLean, Ohio
Assoc Justice - James Wayne, Georgia
Assoc Justice - John Catron, Pennsylvania
Assoc Justice - Peter Daniel, Virginia
Assoc Justice - Samuel Nelson, New York
Assoc Justice - Robert Grier, Pennsylvania
Assoc Justice - John Campbell, Georgia
Assoc Justice - Nathan Clifford, New Hampshire
Five of the eight associate justices were from Northern states. The Chief Justice was from a border state. That leaves three Southern Justices. Now that don't quite make a majority do it?
Just a small correction here if you don't mind. At Lincoln's election would be in 1859. The court was as follows in 1859:
Chief Justice-Roger Taney- Maryland - Jackson Appointee
John McLean- Ohio but raised in Virginia and Kentucky- Jackson Appointee
James M. Wayne- Georgia- Jackson Appointee
John Catron- Pennsylvania was appointed from Tennessee where he was practicing law-Jackson Appointee
Peter V. Daniel- Virginia-Van Buren Appointee (Died May 31, 1860)
Nathan Clifford- New Hampshire- Buchanan Appointee
Robert C. Grier- Pennsylvania- Polk Appointee
John A. Campbell- Alabama-Pierce Appointee resigned 1861 during secession crisis (served in Confederate Government)
Samuel Nelson- New York-Tyler Appointee
Lets see what we actually had sitting on the court when Lincoln was elected. Five of the nine were from the south (as is obvious from the decisions leading up to the war; see Dred Scot). Six of the nine were appointed by Presidents from the South. Van Buren, Buchanan, and Pierce appointed the other three; three presidents who owed their election to southern support and were roundly critisized in the north for their unfailing southern support. One of the judges resigned to serve in the Confederate government. If there ever was a Supreme Court completely dominated by the southern viewpoint, this was it.
What about the balance of power in Congress in 1860? Did the Southern states have a realistic fear that Lincoln could somehow assail their peculiar institution by carrying the Congress with him on an anti-slavery crusade? It will be remembered that it was the Republican Party platform which Lincoln ran on that was the source of much of the alarm. Did the Republican's have a hope of controlling congress? Let's look at the actual numbers.
(Just for a little background)
35th Congress 1857-1859 Senate
Democrats 39 Republicans 20 Others 5
House of Representatives
Democrats 131 Republicans 92 Others 14
(The Congress in question)
36th Congress 1859-1861 Senate
Democrats 38 Republicans 26 Others 2
House of Representatives
Democrats 101 Republicans 113 Others 23
In Congress after Lincoln's election the Democratic party enjoyed a 12 vote majority in the Senate in a body of 66 members. In the House the Republicans enjoyed a 12 vote majority in a body of 237 members. This was offset by the members listed as others who were the holdovers from the old Whig and Know-Nothing party and were largely southerners. The Republican Party could not even elect a speaker without the help of the "others" (see "Anger in the House" in this forum) who were known in Congress as the "south Americans." It isn't very likely that ANY program against southern interests could have been pushed through Congress as it was composed before the South seceded.
What happened after the south walked out of Congress?
37th Congress 1861-1863 Senate
Democrats 11 Republicans 31 Others 7
House of Representatives
Democrats 42 Republicans 106 Others 28
Congress was left with one of the most overwhelming party majorities in American history. A party largely hostile to the south's "peculiar institution" for the most part because it was understood to be the cause of the south attempting to leave the union and the bloody war that followed. Is it reasonable to assume that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments could have been passed before the south seceded?
Dear Rick, Thank you so much for your research and efforts in answer to my questions concerning the Supreme Court make-up and on the 35th & 36 Congress. It is deeply appreciated from a 'single source' kinda guy.
Ron, thank you for your efforts also and for your initial info on the Court. It can be kind of confusing if you're just looking for one kind of answer, trust me I know. When I first read your posting I was thrown into some confusion, trying to figure out how the Staunton Spectator newspaper article could have been so far off! Now I know why the editor/writer came to such conclusions after reading Rick's post.
This whole thing has taught me not to just try and score points off of one another (although sometimes the temptation is so strong) but to do very careful research and make sure of the facts from all angles. Thanks for your help, your time and consideration.
Oh, and by the way,
(TWANG!)
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Rick, I have an issue or two with your conclusions about the Southern Supreme Court. You state:
Chief Justice-Roger Taney- Maryland - Jackson Appointee
John McLean- Ohio but raised in Virginia and Kentucky- Jackson Appointee
James M. Wayne- Georgia- Jackson Appointee
John Catron- Pennsylvania was appointed from Tennessee where he was practicing law-Jackson Appointee
Peter V. Daniel- Virginia-Van Buren Appointee (Died May 31, 1860)
Nathan Clifford- New Hampshire- Buchanan Appointee
Robert C. Grier- Pennsylvania- Polk Appointee
John A. Campbell- Alabama-Pierce Appointee resigned 1861 during secession crisis (served in Confederate Government)
Samuel Nelson- New York-Tyler Appointee
Jackson appointee - Southern? Not by a long shot, my friend. Jackson was a STRONG FEDERALIST. He believed in a mighty powerful Federal government, the antithesis of what the Southerner wanted or believed in. It matters not what state a person is living in (trust me, I live in Ohio but I think Union Blue would tell you that Mississippi red clay runs heavy in my veins), when they become a politician, it matters what their position is.
As for the Dred Scott decision, dear me, the Constitution reads, (Article IV, Section II, Clause III.)
Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
It don't mean a fig what your political leanings are, except if you are Abraham Lincoln, the Constitution says, if you are a slave and you escape (which can also mean taken into) a free state or territory, you must be returned to your previous state of bondage, you can not and willnot be free.
If only one of nine resigned from the Federal institution of the Supreme Court to fight for the South, then the other eight were obviously Northerners in black robes.
What you proposed is good, Rick, but that hippopotomus just won't fly...
Neil, well hell - ka-thunk - ya shot a broken arrow into a dead horse....
Ron,
Good news! You can get back on your feed because we are squarely in disagreement here.
The Dred Scot case centered around the argument of whether Dred Scot could have been a citizen in one of the free territories he was residing in where the Congress had ruled that slavery was ILLEGAL. Once again we run squarely into the Argument about state's rights. Scot did not run away or escape; he took his case to court. If the territory he was residing in had the right to decide if slavery was illegal inside this territory, then Scot could logically claim to be a free man once he was a resident of this territory. This is the type of argument where the southern state's facade of being in support of state's rights shows its obvious weakness. The southern states insisted on State's rights only as long as these rights didn't interfere with their own personal right to own slaves. The crux of the Dred Scot case centered around the idea of whether a black man could ever be considered to be a citizen. Taney, in his infamous decision ruled that he could not. See below.
Dred Scott v. Sanford
Citation: 60 U.S. 393 (1857) Concepts: Slavery/Question of Citizenship v. Fifth Amendment/Property Rights
Facts
Dred Scott, a slave, was taken by his owner, Sanford, into northern federal territory. Scott felt that he was free because of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which excluded slavery from specified portions of United States territories. When he came back to Missouri, Scott sued his owner for his freedom.
Issue
Whether Dred Scott, a slave, was a citizen of the United States and legally entitled to use the courts to sue.
Opinion
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that slaves were property, not citizens and, therefore, Dred Scott was not entitled to use the courts. The Court focused on the rights of the owner, not the slave, saying that black people had no rights that white people were bound to respect. Justice Taney said that freeing Scott would be a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment because it would amount to depriving Sanford of his property without due process of law. He also said that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territory and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.
[Justice Taney is considered one of the most prominent chief justices; however, Dred Scott has been widely criticized throughout history. Justice Taney believed that if he decided the case in favor of Scott, immediate civil war would have resulted. Associate Justice Curtis of Massachusetts disagreed so strongly with Taney’s decision that he left the Court.]
I think even you can agree this was a most southernly leaning decision.
As for your further comments; One justice resigned and one from Virginia died between your listing of the court in 1861 and my listing of the justices at the time of Lincoln's election. I stand behind my earlier statement. The Supreme Court at this time was dominated by southern opinions.
Oh Man Rick, your arguments give me such a headache.
OK - my reading, and folks don't jump my tired ole back on this, I do not support slavery, feel it was a terrible injustice, and that is that, BUT the decision seems to me to read, that slaves were property, not citizens. The second part of this is, as citizens they are not entitled to use the courts to sue ANYBODY.
The court went on to say, that the congress had no power to prohibit slavery. I find that pretty much true to the Constitution which says that Congress has the following powers:
ARticle I, Section VIII
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Do you see in these rights the right to approve or reject slavery in a district? the only mention of a district in this is for Washington DC, a "ten-mile square".
Scott's lawsuit began in 1847. It took 10 years to decide. Taney did what he had to do, slavery issue aside right or wrong, at this time, "No person (read this citizen) ...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Was Scott still slave after moving to the Wisconsin territory then returning to Missouri where even his ownership had changed hands? Yes. That was the law, because Scott was back in the United States where the Fugitive Slave law was still a part of the Constitution. And with the decision that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, Civil War moved one step closer to happening.
Yes, it was a southern leaning decision. It was also an expedient decision in an attempt to prevent the Civil War from starting because of the slavery issue.
And my listing of the justices came directly from the listing of Supreme Court justices and their webpage. If I did not list them correctly then obviously the US Supreme Court pages must be wrong. I set my year at 1860, chose those judges whose precedent covered that period.
I feel those judges selected by Jackson would have carried Jackson's sentiments on a strong, very strong Federal government. That is anathema to the Southern position on the Federal government in 1860.
my best to you sir, and I look forward to continuing this, after I take a few aspirins (or have a drink)
"BUT the decision seems to me to read, that slaves were property, not citizens. The second part of this is, as citizens they are not entitled to use the courts to sue ANYBODY."
I think you have the gist of Taney's decision correctly surmised with this statement. He was basically saying that the Constitution and it's gurantees to US citizens did not apply to slaves. Taney then went on in an effort to forever solve such agitations such as the case involving Scot by suggesting that the founding fathers meant for ANY and ALL Africans, free or slave, to be outside the bounds of Citizenship or recognition as MEN. There was much talk at the time by abolitionists and those preaching the horrors of slavery of the incongruity of the Declaration of Independence, which stated "ALL men are created equal" with "certain inalienable rights" which included freedom, and the practice of slavery. See the excerpt below from Taney's opinion:
"In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.
It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.
They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics which no one thought of disputing or supposed to be open to dispute, and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.
And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed or more [p*408] uniformly acted upon than by the English Government and English people. They not only seized them on the coast of Africa and sold them or held them in slavery for their own use, but they took them as ordinary articles of merchandise to every country where they could make a profit on them, and were far more extensively engaged in this commerce than any other nation in the world.
The opinion thus entertained and acted upon in England was naturally impressed upon the colonies they founded on this side of the Atlantic. And, accordingly, a negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property, and held, and bought and sold as such, in every one of the thirteen colonies which united in the Declaration of Independence and afterwards formed the Constitution of the United States. The slaves were more or less numerous in the different colonies as slave labor was found more or less profitable. But no one seems to have doubted the correctness of the prevailing opinion of the time.
The legislation of the different colonies furnishes positive and indisputable proof of this fact.
The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive:
It begins by declaring that,
[w]hen in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to [p*410] assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
It then proceeds to say:
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration, for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted, and instead of the sympathy of mankind to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.
Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men -- high in literary acquirements, high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others, and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection."
The only justification for such an argument would be the claim by Taney that blacks were somehow not included in the "ALL Men" statement because the founding fathers did not think of them as Men, but property. This is an argument that Taney went to great lengths to prove. It is also quite possibly the most ludicrous one that any judge has ever put forward. The Declaration was drafted by Thomas Jefferson. The original draft contained an excorciating condemnation of the King's attempts to keep the colonists from banning this trade in "MEN". See Below:
"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither. this piratical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. [determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold,] he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold]: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he had deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
Doesn't sound a lot to me like Jefferson considered the slaves not to be "MEN". He calls the slave trade "cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people". This part of the original Declaration was struck out specifically because Georgia and South Carolina were still actively involved in importing slaves and wanted to continue it. The founding fathers made no objections to Jefferson's use of the term "MEN" in describing the slaves or his assertion that slavery was a violation of their rights of liberty. There was no general understanding in 1776 that slaves were outside the fraternity of man.
Taney was trying to deal with a situation that he knew to be volatile. In so doing he substituted his own prejudicial thinking for the thoughts of the founding fathers and only further exacerbated the situation. The truth of the matter is that the founding fathers knew very well their conduct in continuing slavery was inconsistent with the principles they put forward in the Declaration of Independence but lacked the ability to solve the problem so they did what men often due when faced with a problem they can't solve; they put it off.
"Do you see in these rights the right to approve or reject slavery in a district? the only mention of a district in this is for Washington DC, a "ten-mile square".
Reading a little further you will find:
Article III Section 3
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Hard to put much clearer than that my friend. Congress specifically has the right to "make all rules and regulations" in these territories.
I got this from the District of Columbia home site..
The government of the District of Columbia holds a unique status in the country's political system, functioning as a state, county, and city. The complexity of the District government is seen in the many different roles performed by individual agencies. Specific functions of the District government that are usually performed by state-level governments include: state courts, driver licensure, liquor control, unemployment compensation, food and drug inspection, health care facility, professional licensure, designation of development zones and lottery, just to name a few. Administration and management of this unique government is the job of the executive branch.
Make of it what you will but it is clearly not a territory. Is it?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
