An Aspect of the Career by Roger B Taney - Article Example

Research paper on Roger B. Taney (1777-1864) focusing on one aspect of his life that I would find interesting Roger Brooke Taney was the controversial fifth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States whose name is most famously associated with the Dred Scott case of 1857. In this case a black slave called Dred Scott sued for his freedom. The case came on appeal before the Chief Justice who deemed it unconstitutional because Scott was the descendant of slaves and therefore not a citizen. He is reputed to have made the following contradictory and inflammatory remarks: “All blacks- slaves or not - are not and never can be citizens.” “Slavery is a blot on our national character, and every real lover of freedom confidently hopes that it will be effectually, though it must be gradually, wiped away” These statements made in connection with the ruling of the Chief Justice in Scott vs. Sanford added fuel to the incendiary passions leading to the start of American Civil War, setting North against South. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s ruling in Scott vs. Sanford continues to stand out starkly in the annals of the Supreme Court and the political history of the Civil War and the abolitionist movement. This paper focuses on the career of Roger. B. Taney. Born on March 17, 1777 in Calvert County, Maryland into a Catholic plantation family Roger Taney was privately educated at home in his early years. His family was of English origin. Later he studied at Dickensian College in Carlisle, Pa and law in Annapolis. Taney married Anne Key in 1806. Anne Key was the sister of Francis Scott Key, a classmate of Taney at law school and she was a girl from a refined and prestigious family. Taney was considered a good speaker and a strong man to stand up for what he believed in. His political ambitions were fed by his father. A lawyer called Jeremiah Chase was Taney’s first employer after he was admitted into the bar in 1799. Taney came to be a leader of the Federalists, a group which was strongly in favor of a powerful central government and weaker states. The Federalists had the support of many judges and lawyers as well as other leading members of the community. However, during the war of 1812, and in later years, Taney opposed the views of many of his fellow federalists. After the war, Taney served several terms in the senate and developed a strong law practice. He gained a reputation as a successful lawyer with a bright political future. In 1824, Taney shifted his original political stance and supported Andrew Jackson in his candidature for president and was appointed Attorney General in 1931. Taney was also the President’s legal advisor in his crusade against the Second Bank of the United States. During President Jackson’s second term, the President attempted to withdraw the government’s money from the bank. This was on the advice of Roger B. Taney. The then Secretary of the Treasury William J. Duane refused to do so and Taney was appointed acting secretary in his stead. This appointment was never ratified by the Senate but during his tenure as Acting Secretary Taney withdrew the funds from the Second Bank. This was the first controversy in his career and as a fall out, the Senate refused to ratify his nomination as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. President Jackson appointed Taney as Chief Justice in 1836 in gratitude for his work as Acting Secretary. Taney thus became the first Roman Catholic Chief Justice of the United States. As Chief Justice, Taney served from 1836 until his death in 1864. Along with his predecessor John Marshall, Taney is given credit for interpreting the Constitution and clarifying the power of the Supreme Court in determining whether national and state laws were unconstitutional. During his twenty eight years as head of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, Taney’s notable decisions were Charles River Bridge Company Vs Warren Bridge (1837), the Dred Scott decision (1857) and Merryman, ex parte. Among these, his most controversial case was the well known Dred vs. Sanford. In the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court ruled that slavery is legal in all the territories of the United States. Dred Scott was a slave of African origin born around 1800 in the state of Virginia. He belonged to a man called Peter Blow. Scott and his master Peter Blow traveled to Alabama and then to St. Louis, Missouri in 1830. Two years after their arrival in St. Louis, Peter Blow passed away. Scott was then bought by an Army surgeon called. John Emerson. Taney and Emerson were great friends. The surgeon lived in the slave state of Missouri but later moved to the free state of Illinois and then to Wisconsin territory which had been declared a free State. He did this so that Scott would become a free man. In Wisconsin, Scott continued to live with Emerson although now he was technically a free man. Scott’s education was paid for by Emerson. Scott married during his residence in the free state. His wife was also a slave whose ownership was transferred to Dr. Emerson. Scott had two children. When Emerson grew old and felt he was near the time of his death, he moved back to Missouri. Scott went with him and was told that since he had crossed back into the slave state, he was a slave again could be re- sold as property. Scott decided to challenge the law and sued the estate of Emerson for his freedom and the freedom of his wife and two children. Mrs. Emerson’s affairs were handled by her brother after the death of John Emerson and Dred Scott filed the petition Dred Scott vs. Sanford in a lower court in Missouri. Scott claimed since he was taken out of Missouri and resided in a free state, his residence in the free state had ended his bondage. The suit was filed in St. Louis where he won but the decision was reversed in the Missouri supreme court which also reversed its precedents at the same time. The case then went to the federal courts by which time it had gained a great amount of public attention and political sensitivity. A federal district court ruled against Scott and it then went to the supreme court where in 1857 Chief Justice Taney and the other supreme court judges considered the case. They decided to focus on the constitutionality of the case and ignore the other aspects. In Taney’s infamous ruling he proclaimed that Scott as a black man, had no rights that a white man need respect and as Scott was not a citizen of the United States of America he had no legal right to take the case to court. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court claimed that those persons of African American origin were property and could be treated as such. The repercussions of the case were extreme. While it galvanized the abolitionist movement in the North, it reaffirmed and entrenched the Southerner’s conviction that they were morally in the right to hold slaves. The curious fact is that Taney himself personally claimed to believe that the institution of slavery was a blot against humanity and should be eradicated. He freed his own slaves and in some cases provided his older slaves with a pension for life. The reason for his judgment seems to have been his interpretation of the existing laws and the legal position of the African American. While he believed these laws to be fundamentally wrong, he passed a judgment upholding the very laws that supported a condition which he described as a blot against humanity. Taney decided that the court had no jurisdiction in the case as Dred Scott was not a citizen of the United States. This was based on the fact that black men in America at that time were slaves as well as descendants of men brought from Africa to work as slaves. As such they had no rights guaranteed by the constitution of the United States to its citizens. In his judgment, Chief Justice Taney was admirably non partisan. However, as a staunch catholic, as a man with strong beliefs and one who had proclaimed his dislike for the institution of slavery, the fact that he passed a ruling so much against his beliefs showed that his judgment was indeed impaired. In his effort to make the right legal decision he crossed moral grounds and betrayed his own personal beliefs. Taney defended his decision by claiming he upheld the oath that he swore to interpret the law under the constitution of the United States. Coming from an English family and brought up as a devout Roman Catholic, Taney believed as he was heard to proclaim that all men were equal in the sight of God. The 1830s was time of deep religious revival in the southern states and the start of the abolitionist movement. Was Roger B. Taney an abolitionist? Or was he a racist? If he was an abolitionist he had sworn an oath to uphold a constitution in which he could not believe. If anything, Taney was probably more anti slavery than an extreme abolitionist. He had freed his own slaves must earlier. When he found himself at a moral crossroads in the case of Dred Scott, he did not choose to resign. He proceeded to deliver the judgment that split the nation. With the judgment came Taney’s inflammatory remarks which branded him a racist in the eyes of many. Not even the fact that he had freed his slaves much earlier on or was reputedly anti slavery could remove the stain caused by his racist remarks. After the commencement of the Civil War, Chief Justice Taney was involved in another controversial case commonly referred to as “ex parte Merryman”. The circumstances of the case developed in April of 1861 at a stage in the war shortly after the bombardment of Fort Sumter by Confederate forces. President Lincoln called for volunteers to defend Washington against a possible uprising in Virginia. The Sixth Massachusetts regiment responded and while they were on their way to Washington were involved in a riot that broke out in Baltimore, Maryland. Civilians and soldiers were killed and Baltimore’s Mayor as well as the governor of Maryland announced that they would not permit anymore troop transfers. Lieutenant John Merryman was among the troops who sent back the Massachusetts regiment. Merryman was instrumental in blowing up a bridge along the route which effectively blocked troop movement. He was later arrested and imprisoned. After his imprisonment Merryman filed a plea of habeas corpus. President Lincoln had written a letter to the commanding General in which he allowed suspension of habeas corpus within the military line. Merryman’s plea went to a circuit or appellate court where Chief Justice Roger B. Taney who was sitting as the circuit court judge ruled that Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional. This was a serious affront to Lincoln and the Administration. Frederick S. Calhoun, the Chief Historian for the United States Marshal’s Service, at the Department of Justice, recently wrote a 200 year history of Federal Marshals, entitled, The Lawmen: United States Marshals and their Deputies, 1789–1989 (Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C. 1989). This book gives a detailed account of an arrest warrant, signed by President Abraham Lincoln, in the early days of his administration. The warrant was to arrest the Chief Justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney following his opinion in the case of Ex parte Merryman The account is found in the chapter entitled, "Arrest of Traitors and Suspension of Habeas Corpus." It was taken from the private papers of the Federal Marshall, Ward Hill Laman, at the Huntington Library in Pasadena. The arrest order was placed in the hands of federal Marshall Ward Hill Laman who recalls that Lincoln told him to use his discretion when he made the arrest. In this decision, once again, Chief Justice Taney is seen to uphold the constitution while at the same time seeming to side with the enemy and appear to be a traitor to the United States Government. In this case as well it may be said that the Chief Justice was true to his oath and carried out his job to the best of his ability. However, his actions were seen as obstructionism by the Government and was considered to be an act of treason by some. Taney further incised the Government by making copies of his orders and sending them to other judges urging them to issue writs of habeas corpus. These writs were sometimes issued in case of military arrest of civilians. The government’s efforts to stamp out secessionist activity were severely curtailed. The problem with legal interpretations of the constitution is that they seem to change with the times and political views of the persons who hand out the interpretation. They have often been critiqued as mere whims and fancies of people in a position of power. It has also been claimed that laws have been bent to suit a particular group of people or n Administration by new interpretations of the constitution. Roger Taney's decision in the Dred Scott was based on the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. In handing out the decision he was protecting the rights of a citizen of the US. It is widely held to be the worst decision ever handed out by the Supreme Court and has come under much criticism by legal scholars over the years. The incredible decision that African Americans had no rights is seen as one of the classical cases of jurisprudential error. It is indisputably the most racist decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States. It’s closest parallel in modern case history, in terms of the notoriety that the case stirred up, may be Roe vs. Wade where once again the Supreme Court laid down a controversial decision to protect an individual’s rights. In Taney’s defense, his infamous statements quoted at the beginning of this paper, are often taken out of historical and semantic context. His statements were actually a summing up of history and not a ruling. Taney’s writing on the case also states that free blacks could not be citizens, not that free blacks should be slaves. Another statement made by the notorious judge has its repercussion even today. He stated that one proof that blacks are not citizens is that the founding fathers did not envision them as having the right to bear arms. This is often cited in arguments involving the gun control act. As an interesting footnote to the case is that the initial suit was financed by the Blow estate, the original owners of Dred Scott. They assisted him finacially in his quest for freedom. When Dred Scot lost the final appeal in the Supreme Court, the sons of John Emerson, childhood friends of Scott, bought him his freedom. Dred Scott died of tuberculosis about a year later, a free man in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the citizens of the United States. The Dred Scott case labeled Taney a racist. In the Merryman case, Taney clashed with the Lincoln administration over slavery and secessionism and the powers available to the president in times of war. This caused him to be labeled a traitor. Taney is seen to be upholding personal freedom but at a time when the country was at war. He defied the wishes of the government saying that the President could not ignore basic rights without an act of Congress. Taney’s judgment in the case is quoted below in part: “I ordered this attachment yesterday, because, upon the face of the return, the detention of the prisoner was unlawful, upon the grounds: 1. That the president, under the constitution of the United States, cannot suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, nor authorize a military officer to do it. 2. A military officer has no right to arrest and detain a person not subject to the rules and articles of war, for an offence against the laws of the United States, except in aid of the judicial authority, and subject to its control; and if the party be arrested by the military, it is the duty of the officer to deliver him over immediately to the civil authority, to be dealt with according to law. It is, therefore, very clear that John Merryman, the petitioner, is entitled to be set at liberty and discharged immediately from imprisonment. I forbore yesterday to state orally the provisions of the constitution of the United States, which make those principles the fundamental law of the Union, because an oral statement might be misunderstood in some portions of it, and I shall therefore put my opinion in writing, and file it in the office of the clerk of the circuit court, in the course of this week.' He concluded by saying, that he should cause his opinion, when filed, and all the proceedings, to be laid before the president, in order that he might perform his constitutional duty, to enforce the laws, by securing obedience to the process of the United States” (Source: totse.com) Although Judge Taney sent a copy of the order suspending habeas corpus to President Lincoln, the matter seems to have died there. The order did not come under the scrutiny of the full court during the war. Lincoln is reputed to have ordered Taney’s arrest after the case. It was not an easy task to carry out due to the influence and importance of the Chief Justice. Lincoln gave the order to a US Marshall and asked him to use his discretion. The arrest was never made. In this situation it would almost certainly have been a criminal offence for the President to have issued such an order. It has still not been proved beyond doubt that Lincoln actually signed the arrest order for Judge Taney. More likely, the Administration considered the idea of arresting the Chief Justice but did not proceed any further. The Constitution does provide the President with emergency powers to take suitable action in cases of rebellion or invasion to protect the safety of citizens. This sentiment is echoed in the wake of the Sep 11 the 2002 terrorist acts when a large number of citizens under suspicion were detained for interrogation. President Bush activated many dormant legal provisions by declaring a state of Emergency. The provisions included some which allowed him to invoke martial law and censorship. In the wake of the Dred Scott and Merryman rulings much criticism was directed against Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. It was pointed out that his appointment came about only because of his service as Secretary of the Treasury. In his short term at that post he carried out the President’s wishes and in gratitude the President made him Chief Justice when the vacancy arose. Critics of Taney say that he was not the man most suitable for the job and the very fact that he was appointed to the post is a clear case of nepotism. Judge Taney seemed to have considered the Scott case as one involving property rights and not one dealing with he issues of slavery. This issue was quoted by President Bush in his electoral debates with John Kerry. President Bush said that in considering the case as a property rights issue the court was expressing its personal opinion and not the law. While it may be argued that the main thrust of the court’s decision was the citizen ship issue, it is true that judgment deemed Scott as personal property. The Judge in considering one aspect of the Constitution did not also consider the equality of men proclaimed by the same document. He focused on the citizenship of Dred Scoot which was loophole that the Judge squeezed the case through. Not a thought for the social injustices involved in neither the case nor the fact that before him stood a man who would kneel with the Judge before the same God. In an earlier case Ableman vs. Booth on which Judge Taney presided, he made a statement regarding the constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Law. Taney said that, “in the judgment of this court, the act of Congress commonly called the Fugitive Slave Law is, in all of its provisions, fully authorized by the Constitution of the United States." This judgment also clearly shows that Taney interpreted the law to its letter. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in his two controversial decisions in the Merryman and Dred Scott case succeeded only in making the Supreme Court seem irrelevant. In the Dred Scott case it was a judicial solution to a political problem. The facts remains that Taney is more famous for the controversial nature of the judgment than for any clear insight or resolution of the issues. While the Dred Scott case seems to cast him as an abolitionist, the Merryman case seems to show that he favored the secessionist movement. To look at it from another point, Taney comes across as an unpopular judge who enforced the constitution unbendingly. This shows him to be an unflinching stalwart who remained true to the oath of his office even in the face of a huge resentment and unpopularity. The Chief Justice’s famous decisions could have found favor in the eyes of many if the Dred Scott case was a case similar to the Merryman case. But they could not be more different. The Dred Scott case involved the exploitation of a minority class of people and went against Taney’s personal beliefs. It is also interesting to note that in both the major controversial cases, Chief justice Taney came out with the populist verdict. The fact that he was so wrong to say that a black man has no legal rights and can never be a citizen of America may seem ridiculously evident now. It was not so evident at that period in time. This was the actual belief held by large proportion of people. The failure in his judgment came in the fact that the judge believed in himself that the law was wrong. He was true to his oath but unfaithful to himself. It is not hard to believe that the Dred Scott case stayed with him during the rest of his days as Chief Justice. One of the better consequnces of the Dred Scott judgment is that it did lead to a process of change which was gradual, painful and bitterly fought all the way. Change did come about and it was one of the consequences of the errors and it remains to be speculated whether a different judgment would have produced a more beneficial evolution in society. The United States Coast Guard Cutter Roger B. Taney was commissioned October 24, 1936, and was in active service during World War 2. By an odd twist of fate, it was the only survivor to stay afloat of the one hundred odd ships in the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941. It was decommissioned in 1986 and designated a National Historic Landmark in 1988. Interestingly, the cutter was one of seven named after former Secretaries of the Treasury and hence it was for this temporary post that Taney was honored and not for his period as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In 1865, Congress rejected a proposal to commission a bust of Taney to be placed in the nation’s capitol. One of those who led the campaign not to honor Taney was anti-slavery activist and “Radical Republican” Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts. He wrote of Taney: “I speak what cannot be denied when I declare that the opinion of the Chief Justice in the case of Dred Scott was more thoroughly abominable that anything in the history of the courts.” (Source: washingtoninformer.com) Chief Justice Roger B. Taney would die, ironically, on the day that Maryland abolished slavery, proving his heart right while strengthening the movement. that would set his judgment wrong. References: www.pbs.org www.Hsfcinfo.org The Taney Court –Justices, Rulings and Legacy by Timothy S. Huebner ABC-CLIO 10/2003 A History of the Supreme Court by Bernard Schwartz Oxford University Press 1993 Read More