Paul Finkelman writes:
You are talking about the Jacob Gruber case. It is of course a case in
which Taney is defending a white man, and is not about *black* rights,
as is Dred Scott. It is also very early in his career, when he was a
Federalist and had some idealism. Finally, of course, he was arguing a
case. Lawyers say lots of things to juries that they might not agree
with or believe. Lawyes are hired to represent their client's interest,
not their own! Certainly, this view of the founders contrasts with his
more accurate view of them as being proslavery, which he sets out in
Dred Scott v. Sandford.
All true, but it certainly paints a more complex picture of the man
than I'd had before (i.e., a simple racist jackass out to protect
slavery). Perhaps he believed that by constitutionalizing the
question of slavery, he would defuse the issue. It wouldn't be an
unlikely mistake, viewed from a judge's perspective... proclaim it's
the constitution, and everyone will have to grumble and conform.
And if someone had explained that his decision would lead to
600,000 dead, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and other such
trifles, he probably would have filed paperwork for that someone's
mental committment.
--
