Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Long term thoughts on the gun issue | Main | First use of forensic tests on firearms? »

A new view of Justice Taney

Posted by David Hardy · 9 August 2005 04:36 PM

We probably all know of Dred Scott and its author, CJ Roger Taney. I just encountered an unusual insight into the fellow. American State Trials, vol I at 69 ff has an account of a case he tried and won in 1819.

His defendant was a Methodist Episcopal minister charged with violating the Slave Code (which forbade whites to oppose slavery publicly), It was claimed defendant had given a sermon denouncing slavery (and saying that it was a wonder the slaves didn't rise up and cut their masters' throats, and that slaves were treated as if they had no souls, when in fact they were more likely to end up in heaven than were their tyrannous masters) to a church full of ... slaves.

Taney by the account gave one rousing jury argument. He starts by saying that everybody knows that church opposes slavery and its ministers give sermons to that effect. The slaves came voluntarly, and their masters presumably did not forbid them.

He goes on to say that a person is clearly protected in preaching their religious creed, unless the statements are immoral and calculated to disturb the peace and order of society, while "subjects of national policy may, at all times, be freely and fully discussed in the pulpit, or elsewhere, without limitation or restraint." If the sermon offended or alarmed some of the listeners, "Their feelings, or their fears, would not alter the character of this doctrine or take from him a right secured to him by the constitution and laws of the state."

He argues it is necessary to prove evil intent; and on this even his own words are not conclusive evidence. If you take his words, many of the Framers said the same of slavery, or even worse. Are they guilty of incite slave revolt? "A hard necessity" may compel us to endure "the evil of slavery for a time. It was imposed upon us by another nation, while we were yet in a state of colonial vassalage. It cannot be easily or suddenly removed. Yet while it continues, it is a blot on our national character, and every real lover of freedom, confidently hopes it will be effectually, though it must be gradually, wiped away, and earnestly looks forward for the means by which this necessary object may be best obtained. And until it shall be accomplished, until the time shall come when we can point without a blush to the language held in the declaration of independence, every friend of humanity will seek to lighten the galling chain of slavery, and to better, to the utmost of his power, the wretched condition of the slave."

This is the later Chief Justice Taney!!!!

· Framers to the Civil War

1 Comment | Leave a comment

RKV | August 10, 2005 7:34 AM | Reply

Also by Taney..."It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-making power; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the constitution. The duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted." http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/21.htm

Leave a comment