data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/92eaa/92eaa05620691473591a05574e3ec0205d87546d" alt=""
The
Dred Scott vs. Sandford decision for which he is now being vilified was a 7-2
decision with Taney in the majority and was decided on the basis of
interpreting the Constitution as it was written. It took the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to
"fix" the Constitution so it appears Taney's interpretation was
correct at the time of the decision. Recall this Article IV, Section 2 passage was only voided by the 13th Amendment: "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 form such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." I don't think anyone wants to empower the Supreme Court to amend the Constitution or legislate from their bench.
Taney
was personally against slavery and, when he inherited slaves at the death of
his father, he manumitted all of them and even provided pensions to the ones too
old to work. He famously condemned
Slavery as “a blot on our National character.”
Chief Justice Taney even administered the oath of office to Abraham
Lincoln on 4 March 1861.
No comments:
Post a Comment