Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Seccession and the President's War Powers
    Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Seccession and the President's War Powers
    Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Seccession and the President's War Powers
    Audiobook11 hours

    Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Seccession and the President's War Powers

    Written by James F. Simon

    Narrated by Richard Allen

    4/5

    ()

    Switch to ebook

    About this audiobook

    The clashes between President Abraham Lincoln and Chief Justice Roger B. Taney over slavery, secession, and Lincoln's constitutional war powers went to the heart of Lincoln's presidency.

    Lincoln and Taney's bitter disagreements began with Taney's Dred Scott opinion in 1857, when the Chief Justice declared that the Constitution did not grant the black man any rights that the white man was bound to honor. Lincoln attacked the opinion as a warped judicial interperatation of the Framers' intent and accused Taney of being a member of a pro-slavery national conspiracy.

    In his first inaugural address, Lincoln insisted that the South had no legal right to secede. Taney, who administered the oath of office to Lincoln, believed that the South's seccession was legal and in the best interests of both sections of the country.

    Once the war began, Lincoln broadly interpreted his constitutional powers as commander in chief to prosecute the war, suspending habeas corpus, censoring the press, and allowing military courts to try civilians for treason. Taney vociferously disagreed, accusing Lincoln of assuming dictatorial powers in violation of the Constitution. Lincoln ignored Taney's protests, and exercised his presidential authority fearlessly, determined that he would preserve the Union.

    James F. Simon skillfully brings to life this compelling story of the momentous tug-of-war between the President and the Chief Justice during the worst crisis in the nation's history.

    "...taut and gripping...a dramatic, charged narrative."-Publishers Weekly Starred Review
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherTantor Media, Inc
    Release dateDec 1, 2006
    ISBN9781400173310
    Author

    James F. Simon

    James F. Simon is the Martin Professor of Law and Dean Emeritus at New York Law School. He is the author of seven previous books on American history, law, and politics. His books have won the American Bar Association’s Silver Gavel Award and twice been named New York Times Notable Books. He lives with his wife in West Nyack, New York.

    Related to Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney

    Related audiobooks

    United States History For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      'Heirs Of The Founders' Profiles The 'Second Generation' Of Great American Leaders

      Nov 13, 2018

      In his latest historical spellbinder, bestselling author and scholar H.W. Brands profiles Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John Calhoun, as well as the decades leading up to the Civil War.

      3 min read

    • Article

      More Money, More Problems

      Dec 14, 2019

      More Money, More Problems
      1 min read

    • Article

      Sherman In The Balance

      Dec 15, 2020

      Sherman In The Balance
      9 min read

    • Article

      The Tragedy of Edmund Morris

      May 28, 2019

      The Tragedy of Edmund Morris
      5 min read

    • Article

      Regimental Newspaper

      Feb 14, 2023

      Regimental Newspaper
      1 min read

    • Article

      The State Of Satire

      Oct 23, 2019

      The State Of Satire
      7 min read

    • Article

      Marketing Lincoln

      Apr 6, 2021

      Marketing Lincoln
      5 min read

    • Article

      Q&A with William G. Thomas III, author of ‘A Question of Freedom’

      Jan 4, 2021

      In the United States, enslaved people and their families used court systems to fight for their freedom. Here's a look at some notable examples.

      2 min read

    • Article

      Star Of The West

      Nov 14, 2023

      Star Of The West
      14 min read

    • Article

      A Klansman’s Horrific Reign

      Aug 15, 2023

      A Klansman’s Horrific Reign
      12 min read

    • Article

      Lincoln’s Lesson

      Oct 14, 2022

      Lincoln’s Lesson
      8 min read

    • Article

      Lincoln’s Lesson

      Oct 15, 2022

      Lincoln’s Lesson
      8 min read

    • Article

      Reviews

      Jul 21, 2020

      Reviews
      6 min read

    • Article

      The Other July 4

      Jul 4, 2021

      The Other July 4
      7 min read

    • Article

      Dame Antonia Fraser Profiles A Mighty Battle Over Religious Freedom

      Aug 14, 2018

      Prejudice against Catholics in Britain seems to have been centered around the idea that a society must limit its freedoms in order to protect its freedoms.

      3 min read

    • Article

      The Worst Us Presidents

      Aug 15, 2019

      The Worst Us Presidents
      9 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney

    4/5

    24 ratings5 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 4/5
      Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney – Slavery, Secession, and the President’s War Powers – by James E. Simon

      I read this book many years ago and was drawn back to it in thinking of the ultimate causes of the Civil War, as brought into focus with Nikki Haley’s non-answer to that question during one of her campaign stops recently.

      The Dred Scott decision in 1854 was a watershed moment in hurling the North and South in opposite directions. How could the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court write and promulgate such an evil and poorly thought opinion? Well, it turns out that Taney was a fair-minded and thoughtful legal scholar. Some could argue that he was one of the many “originalist” thinkers, preferring to maintain the status quo.
      Taney was a product of his environment, his family, his education, and experience, especially serving under Andrew Jackson in various positions. Dred Scott was ruled on in a time when there was increasing agitation in the North from Abolitionists. Many saw that movement as more disruptive to American security than slavery. Taney was one of them.
      I came away from this reading (and listening) with greater appreciation for Taney, his consistency and love of the Law. There are glaring opinions that cast him in a terrible light from the perspective of 170 years of history.
      For Lincoln, on the other hand, I could never have more admiration than I already have. Perhaps his extra-constitutional exercises of power are open to criticism. But it will not be me that offers such a perspective.
      With a steady hand, he directed the Union through the agonizing war years. His wisdom, wit, firmness, yet flexibility all combined to make him a man “…for the ages”.
      This is an excellent book to understand the United States in the years leading up to and including the Civil War.
      On the narration, the reader has a wonderful and dramatic voice, but his performance is marred by his inaccurate reading of many passages and his mispronunciation of names. But is still worth the time to hear it read.


    • 4/5
      A double biography of Lincoln and Taney, focusing on their national careers and the battle over slave politics from the 1840s until Taney's death. I suspect there won't be much new here for anyone who has read much about this period before, but Simon does offer an interesting perspective on Taney as a jurist that may be of interest to some. Recommended as an introduction to the judicial conflicts of the early Civil War period at the very least.
    • 5/5
      revised 8/21/11

      Lincoln and Taney had a lot in common. Both abhorred slavery. Taney (pronounced tawney) freed his slaves early on. Both were ungainly, tall men, who wore ill-fitting clothes. The similarity ended there, for they had decidedly differing views on the future of slavery, secession, and presidential war powers. Taney opposed Lincoln for his suspension of many constitutional civil liberties (sounds like Bush, except that Bush had a Supreme Court in his pocket.) The first third or so of the book provides a welcome and succinct background to the confrontation between Lincoln and Taney: the Missouri Compromise, Dred Scott, the Fugitive Slave Act. (see David Herbert Donald's masterful biography of Charles Sumner for detail on the physical assault on Sumner on the Senate floor.)

      It's truly ironic that a man like Taney who had so vigorously defended civil rights, freedom of speech and had attacked slavery as immoral (see his defense of the Methodist minister Gruber who was indicted for supposed insurrectionist speech) has become so vilified and associated with the slavery and the fundamental causes of the Civil War. But his thoughts in Dred Scott were anticipated years earlier in an opinion he filed as Attorney General under Andrew Jackson. He argued that from a constitutional standpoint,blacks were not entitled to any of the rights of free white men, even if they had been freed. He was a strong adherent to the constitutional principle of states' rights as it pertained to slavery, arguing that the framers had clearly delineated slavery rights in the Constitution. His decision in the Charles River Bridge case was considered seminal in attacking monopolies and freeing up competition that laid the groundwork for western and economic expansion.

      Issues that presaged the Civil War are clearly delineated and (unfortunately) reminiscent of contemporary language, if directed elsewhere.. The verbal assaults related to the states' rights to maintain and regulate slavery were supported by many northern states including Connecticut and New York, who argued that interference by abolitionist societies was both "improper and dangerous," and condemned "abolitionist agitation." Illinois adopted similar resolutions, even suggesting that slavery could not be eliminated in the District of Columbia. The resolutions passed 72-6. Lincoln was one of the six, but his explanation -- held back from publication until several bills he wanted passed moved through the legislature -- was measured at best not disagreeing with the right of states to slavery and validating the view that while slavery was bad policy and wrong, the abolitionists' action exacerbated the situation. (Reminds me so much of the complaints against Vietnam antiwar demonstrations.) Again, Taney's and Lincoln's positions on slavery were identical: slavery was evil but the right to slavery was guaranteed to the states by the Constitution.

      Lincoln was a good advocate and made no distinctions in clients for political reasons. He defended a slave who had lived in (free) Illinois for several years and claimed her freedom (Bailey v Cromwell in which he was successful). Yet he also defended Robert Matson in a famous case (Matson v Rutherford) Matson lived in Kentucky, a slave state, but owned farm land in Illinois. He would annually bring slaves into Illinois to work his land, each year bringing a different group of slaves so as not to run a foul of the Illinois "black laws" which were enacted to prevent fugitive slaves from settling in Illinois. They basically endorsed the right of "transit," i.e. that slaves could be transited through the free states without fear that slaves might be judged as free. One of Matson's slaves escaped and he sued for the return of the slave claiming that his property was protected under the transit laws. Lincoln never applied his own morality to his understanding of the law. Neither did Taney.

      By the 1850's there was pressure from abolitionists to resolve the slavery issue in the court. After all, the justices were not elected and would presumably fall back on the Constitution and justice. Well, the former, perhaps. In 1851, in Strader v Graham, those paying attention might have wanted to reconsider that strategy. Graham, a Kentucky slave owner, would send three slaves into Ohio to promote their musical skills. Ohio was a free state and Strader argued that made the slaves free under the Northwest Ordinance. Had the justices ruled the slave provisions of the NW Ordinance unconstitutional, the Civil War might have occurred early. The Taney court unanimously opted to ignore the issues related to the NW Ordinance. Instead, they ruled, that since the slaves had returned voluntarily to Kentucky, their status as slaves was enforced by Kentucky law under the U.S. Constitution. The fact that they might have become free in Ohio was irrelevant.

      Taney and Lincoln were at opposite ends of the spectrum during the Civil War with Taney vehemently opposed to Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and other civil liberties. "1. . . . the president [...:] 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 [...:] except in aid of the judicial authority, and subject to its control." Lincoln simply ignored the ruling. Deja vue anyone?

      This will be a good book for my students to read. Descriptions of important cases are lucid yet brief. I should have remembered more of the details of the Charles River Bridge case when discussing Kelo v New London. Again, another example of the justices having to decide between two competing constitutional values. In Charles, the importance of contracts (supported by the Whigs) and that of the common good (the Jacksonian Democrats.) This is another good example of the illness of a justice affecting the outcome. Had the justice not become ill and been prevented from hearing the case, it would have been decided before Taney became Chief Justice. The other big one I remember is Vinson dying which permitted the appointment of Earl Warren who then set about convincing his colleagues that the country needed a strong unanimous decision in Brown v Board of Ed in 1954. Had Vinson not died, the outcome would have been very different.

    • 4/5
      Interesting book, mainly for its take on Taney. I learned, for instance, that his name is pronounced like "Tawn-ey" (rather than "Tane-y"), and that he was actually anti-slavery for a long time, and that he was a very respected jurist... at least until Dred Scott. The author does the best he can with the limited amount of material regarding the intersection of Lincoln and Taney, but there is an interesting chapter regarding Taney and Habeas Corpus and what Taney tried to do to stop some abuses. The book made me see Taney in a somewhat different light. In some regards, I really felt sorry for him.
    • 4/5
      Roger Tawney, best known for the notorious Dred Scott decision, was the nation's fifth Chief Justice, confirmed in 1836. Although Tawney had freed his own slaves, he was an ardent supporter of state's rights, believing that the Constitution authorized slavery as a choice to be made by individual states. Indeed, Lincoln believed this as well, and meant his Emancipation Proclamation (which only applied to states in the south) to be a wartime measure only, hoping for a constitutional amendment when the war was over.Tawney was known as a careful and sharp analyst of the law. But he was also a defensive Southerner, becoming more prickly as time went on. Simon, a professor emeritus of law and author of a wonderful book on Justice Marshall and President Jefferson, does his best to be "fair and balanced" in his treatment of Tawney. But he is forced to support the general opinion of Dred Scott by legal scholars, who have "savaged" the decision "for its strained reasoning and meager documentation." Northerners at the time found the partisan decision especially "shocking" since "Tawney, over the two decades that he had served as Chief Justice, converted legions of skeptics into true believers in his fairness, pragmatism, and judgment. But in his Dred Scott opinion, where careful scholarship and political wisdom were desperately needed, he failed miserably."Simon also addresses the question of whether Lincoln abused constitutional processes with his wartime restrictions of civil liberties such as the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and restrictions on seditious speech. He concludes that Lincoln's policies were mild for the times (Supreme Court rulings on free speech would not come until much later) and moreover, he deems them much more reasoned and reasonable than either earlier practices by John Adams, or later ones by Wilson, Roosevelt, and George W. Bush. Simon is always worth reading, and this latest effort is no exception. (JAF)