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

by James F. Simon

Traces the political and personal clashes between the sixteenth president and his Chief Justice, profiling their disparate views about African-American rights, the South's legal ability to secede, and presidential constitutional powers during wartime. 40,000 first printing.

Genres: History, Civil War, Nonfiction, Biography, American History, Politics, Presidents

336 pages, Hardcover

First published November 7, 2006

About the author

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.

Reviews

[Jean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Roger B. Taney (1777-1864) succeeded John Marshall (1755-1835) as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Taney served at Attorney General for Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) before being appointed as Chief Justice. Taney was a southern aristocrat but had freed his slaves. Apparently, he did not believe in slavery.

Lincoln and Taney were in constant disagreement over the interpretation of the Constitution. Simon provides more in-depth discussion of both men’s viewpoints. Both men appear more complex than what I have read about in other books. Simon focuses on the key legal quandaries from the Missouri Compromise to the constitutionally of Lincoln’s naval blockade. Simon spent some time on the conflict concerning the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. I was most interested in the discussion regarding the conflict between the two men about the War Powers Act. At the end of the book, Simon discussed the different presidents from Lincoln (1809-1865) to Bush (1946-) and their use of the War Powers. I found the review of Lincoln’s use of the War Powers by Sandra Day O’Conner (1930-) most interesting. Simon’s discussion about Nixon and his claims over the War Powers was unsettling. It is obvious that Congress needs to take control of the War Powers Act and rescind the presidential resolution that had no end date.

The book is well written. Simon ‘s manner of writing allows a lay person to easily understand complex issues. I learned a great deal about these controversies. I have read biographies of both men, but this book concentrates on the key legal issues. I have read several of Simon’s books. I am impressed enough to want to read all his books.

I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is eleven hours and twenty-six minutes. Richard Allen does an average job narrating the book. Allen is a stage actor. He has five Audie Awards nominations for narration and four Earphone Awards. He was voted Audiophile’s Best Voice in 2008.

[Jon Nakapalau · Rating 5 out of 5]

Two powerful men on an ideological collision course - both believe better angels whisper to them - a very dangerous place to dare to tread. It is amazing to me that more people do not know about Chief Justice Taney; it seems to me there are many lessons still to be learned from his epic battle with Lincoln. Highest recommendation.

[Bill · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a brief biography of Abraham Lincoln and an overview of his presidency, this is a decent effort. As a brief biography of Roger Taney and an overview of his tenure as Chief Justice, it's serviceable. As a promised look at "the clashes between" the two "over slavery, secession, and the president's constitutional war powers," it's… well, it's not, really. So I was left kind of disappointed in it, as something of a missed opportunity that didn’t really bring to life either of the two men, their conflicts, or the legal and constitutional questions at issue.

I’d describe the book as a dual biography, but it’s really more like two parallel biographies, because the stories of the two central figures never really intersect. The first third of the book is all background, getting the reader up to speed on the early lives and careers of Lincoln and Taney. It’s when we get to Taney’s opinion in the Dred Scott case, that it seems the book is finally going to get going in earnest. Without condemning or defending it, Simon attempts to explain Taney’s infamous ruling, writing that Taney was acting "in the interests of political expediency," hoping his ruling would settle the issues surrounding slavery once and for all. He "thought he was performing a great service for his country," but antislavery Northerners like Lincoln thought differently.

And then the book loses whatever steam it was starting to build up, and returns to the parallel biography format again. Lincoln runs for the Senate and debates Douglas, Taney defends his Dred Scott decision, Lincoln wins the presidency, the Civil War begins. It’s kind of a rote biography of Lincoln with a smattering of Taney, until we finally get to the John Merryman habeas corpus case. This is the first real head-to-head showdown between the two protagonists that the entire book has been building toward. So surely this is when the book is finally going to get going in earnest?

Instead, the description of the case and the clash came across to me as rather disappointingly perfunctory. Taney said this, Lincoln said this, nothing was really resolved, and the narrative is lacking in any extensive analysis of the issues and why each acted and believed as they did. Having read Brian McGinty’s in-depth Body of John Merryman: Abraham Lincoln and the Suspension of Habeas Corpus prior to this book, I didn’t feel like I had learned anything new here.

We’re only about halfway through the book at this point, but it turns out that was the climax. It’s not Simon’s fault, in that he can’t rewrite history, but Lincoln and Taney never really “clash” again. As Lincoln prosecutes the war and some of his actions raise questions of constitutionality, Taney comes as across as isolated, ineffective and shouting into the wind, complaining to colleagues and authoring unofficial opinions that no one asked for, as Simon discusses how Taney “might” have decided, had various issues like the Emancipation Proclamation, the Legal Tender Act that authorized the use of paper currency, or the Enrollment Act that authorized conscription ever come before the Taney Court. But they never did.

The only major cases referenced that did get to the Taney Court are the Vallandigham habeas corpus case and the Prize Cases regarding the blockade of Southern ports, and Taney himself didn’t author an opinion in either.

Through it all, Simon does offer some analysis of the legal issues at play, but it’s rather succinct, elementary and not particularly detailed or in depth. And far too much of the narrative merely recounts Lincoln’s life and presidency and the progress of the war, all of which has little if anything to do with Taney, constitutionalism or legal issues at all. In the final pages of the epilogue, Lincoln’s wartime actions are dissected and defended in a legal context, but by then, it comes across as somewhat too little too late.

At one point, Simon notes that a dejected Taney had come to believe that "the wartime Supreme Court was an emasculated version of the powerful tribunal over which he had presided for more than two decades." It proves to be an astute observation, because throughout the book, Lincoln largely gets his way and Taney’s opinions don’t seem to amount to much. Perhaps the clashes between the two simply weren’t dramatic and intense enough to warrant a book. Or perhaps the larger legal issues themselves are what’s interesting here, and they would have been better served had Simon not tried to fit them into a biographical format. For a story with such fascinating issues and characters, it’s just too bad the book itself couldn’t have been more fascinating as well.

[Eric_W · Rating 5 out of 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.

[robin friedman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lincoln And Taney

Professor James Simon of New York Law School has made a specialty of exploring historical conflicts between the executive and judicial branches of the government of the United States. He has written books on the conflict between President Thomas Jefferson and Chief Justice Marshall, on the Supreme Court during the Nixon Presidency, and on the conflict among liberal, conservative and centrist elements on the Rhenquist court. Simon's most recent book, "Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney" is a study of the various conflicts between President Abraham Lincoln and the fifth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney, prior to and during the Civil War. Simon offers a thoughtful and timely account, particularly as the Lincoln-Taney conflict involved questions of civil liberties.

The book is cast in the form of a dual biography. Taney's life is much less well-known than Lincoln's and Simon provides valuable biographical insight. Simon points out Taney freed his own slaves and disliked slavery, but that, as Attorney General for President Jackson, Taney wrote a legal memorandum foreshadowing the conclusions he would later reach in the notorious Dred Scott decision. In fact, prior to Dred Scott, Taney was a highly regarded jurist, respected for his legal acumen, thoroughness, and balance.

The book focuses on Lincoln and Taney's respective views on slavery, secession, and the conduct of the Civil War. Simon offers a valuable discussion of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on slavery before the Dred Scott case and he describes well the process the Court used in reaching its fateful decision in Dred Scott -- generally regarded as the worst moment in the history of the Court. He describes how Lincoln criticized the decision and Taney at length during his 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas and how this criticism helped Lincoln achieve the Presidency. There is little in the book on Taney and secession, but Simon makes clear that Taney was sympathetic to the Southern position and favored a peaceful dissolution of the Union rather than a long and bloody civil war, regardless of its outcome.

The larger portion of Simon's book deals with conflicts between Lincoln and Taney following Lincoln's election. Taney objected to Lincoln's assumption of broad war powers which he viewed as in excess of the executive's power under the Constitution. Simon discusses a famous decision of Taney in the Merryman case which involved Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus in the border state, and Taney's home state, of Maryland. The Merryman decision is still studied today for its discussion of civil rights during war time. Simon also explores Taney's views on matters that did not reach the Supreme Court during the Civil War but that involved expansion of presidential powers -- including the Emancipation Proclamation, the use of paper money called "Greenbacks" to finance the Civil War, and the imposition of an income tax. There is an excellent discussion of a series of cases known as the Prize cases which challenged Lincoln's imposition of a blockade and seizure of ships during the early days of the Civil War. The Court sustained the blockade, based upon military necessity by the narrow vote of 5-4 with Taney voting in the minority. I was unfamiliar with the Prize cases, and Simon describes them well.

The book is jargon free and can be read easily by non-lawyers. In addition to the discussion of the lives of Lincoln and Taney and the discussion of legal issues, Simon gives a broad running history of the battles in the Civil War, similar to the narrative accounts available in many other books. This discussion is not at the level of Simon's legal discussion. Simon's history is full of many small but irritating factual and typographical errors. For many battles in the war, Simon confuses total casualty figures with figures for fatalities. This is a common mistake, and it vastly inflates the number of fatalities -- which were horrendous in any event -- for battles such as Shiloh, Antietam, and Gettysburg. Simon also refers to General U.S. Grant as a "colonel" at the time of the taking of Fort Donelson and Fort Henry. A more careful check of the historical details of the Civil War would have been appropriate and welcome.

This book is valuable for its good, nuanced portrayal of Chief Justice Taney and for its discussion of the legal issues surrounding the Civil War, Lincoln's presidency, and the protection of civil liberties during times of crisis.

Robin Friedman

[Porter Broyles · Rating 3 out of 5]

It takes skill and finesse to drop from a 5 star review in the final pages to a 3 star review but Simon did so.

The first 80% of this book is intriguing. The title kind of posits the notion that the book is going to explore Taney and Lincoln’s relationship and interaction during the Civil War.

The first 75% of the book presents a fair representation of both individuals. Taney comes off a little better than most historians portray him, Lincoln is a little worse. That is fair. Taney is often portrayed as the idiot Chief Justice who lead to the worse Supreme Court Opinion in history---a portrayal that is earned, but not necessarily accurate. Lincoln is often portrayed as the genius President who lead the US to emancipate the slaves---a portrayal that is earned, but not necessarily accurate.

Both are memorialized for their most significant AFFECTS on history, not for their individual accomplishments or personas.

The first 75-80% of this book did a good job at presenting BOTH character as complex individuals who go beyond their stereotype. The parts dealing with Taney were particularly good because he is rarely portrayed in a positive light. The parts dealing with Lincoln gave the reader confidence that the author was not writing a hit piece against Lincoln or an apologetic for Taney. The people familiar with Lincoln know his faults and appreciate Simon’s handling of the subject.

He was weaving a deft hand between fiction and reality. Simon was doing an excellent job at presenting Taney in a manner that I was not familiar.

Then we reached the Civil War.

What had promised to be a 5 star review became “ho-hum”. The section of the book that enticed me, became a bore and I struggled to finish it!

For the average Joe, this is probably a good book to read. The Civil War section is probably new and intriguing. But I do not consider this a book for the average Joe. This is a book that targets an audience that is already familiar with the basics.

The conflicts between Taney and Lincoln are what attract the reader to this book. The cursory high level review of the subject in the last quarter were, IMHO, a disservice to the people who would be interested in an esoteric subject like this.

The book probably deserves more than a 3 star review. A person unfamiliar with the Civil War or the subject might give it more, but I can’t help but think that the target audience for this book are going to be disappointed.

The one thing that I can say for it, is that I am now more desirous to read a good biography on Taney. There is more to the man than most history portrays him---even, if in the end, Sumner wanted to leave an empty pedestal where Taney’s bust should go amongst the Chief Justices.

[Skjam! · Rating 3 out of 5]

Those of us with a cursory knowledge of American history, like myself, have heard of the Dred Scott decision of 1857, in which Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney opined that the black man had no rights that the white man was bound to honor. An unjust decision that was swept into the dustbin of history with the outcome of the American Civil War, along with Justice Taney himself. But as with many pieces of history, there’s a lot more to be learned.

This book focuses on a compare and contrast of Abraham Lincoln and Roger Taney, specifically the areas where their political and philosophical ideas clashed. The Lincoln material is pretty standard; if you’ve ever read a good Abraham Lincoln biography, there’s nothing new here.

So let’s take a look at Taney. He was born in Maryland in 1777, while the American Revolution was still in progress. After success as a trial lawyer, showcasing his legal knowledge and reasoning ability, Mr. Taney served as a state legislator. During this time period, Taney was known for being anti-slavery, as he believed the practice to be immoral. He freed his own slaves, and encouraged others to free theirs where economically possible.

However, Taney was a proponent of “gradualism”, the position of moderates in the South. The idea was that as new ways to manage agriculture were found, the economic necessity to employ slave labor would lessen, and it would be more possible to free the enslaved without going broke. Moral suasion would do the rest, and slavery would gradually vanish.

The more radical abolitionists, on the other hand, felt that the moral evil of slavery was such that it was best to eliminate the practice as quickly and totally as possible, even if this caused economic disaster for those areas that depended on slave labor. Naturally, this viewpoint was much more popular in the Northern states, where slavery was much less economically necessary and several states had already banned slave labor.

Politically, Mr. Taney was allied with the Anti-Federalist movement, which distrusted centralized government and wanted to keep as much power as possible at the state or even local level. While Attorney General for Maryland, he fought hard for the populist candidate, Andrew Jackson. Jackson lost to John Quincy Adams in a rare House of Representatives decision, but succeeded on a second try.

President Jackson did not forget Taney’s service, and soon appointed him as Attorney General of the United States. The big public legal question of the time was the power of the Bank of the United States. This central government bank had been the brainchild of Alexander Hamilton, who thought it necessary to maintain the young country’s economic stability and provide the federal government the ability to meet its fiscal responsibilities.

Jackson and his allies felt this centralized fiscal power far too much in the hands of the central government, and it did not help that the Bank had become something of a fiefdom under its president Nicholas Biddle. They launched repeated attacks against the Bank, with Taney providing the Constitutional arguments. When the then Secretary of the Treasury balked at carrying out an order to withdraw all federal funds from the Bank, President Jackson fired the man and put Taney in his place.

The Bank’s allies in Congress refused to confirm Taney’s nomination at Treasury, and then also denied him a nomination for Supreme Court Justice. But the next mid-term election went Jackson’s way, and a more compliant Congress accepted Taney’s nomination for Chief Justice.

As a Supreme Court Chief Justice, Roger Taney was an “originalist” who put much more emphasis on “what did the Founders intend at the time they wrote the Constitution?” than on “given changing circumstances, what interpretation of the Constitution produces the most just outcome?” Like many originalists, Chief Justice Taney tended to rely on the Founders whose words supported his preferred outcome, while ignoring those that did not (like Alexander Hamilton most of the time.)

With his distrust of centralized government power, Taney on average ruled to limit expansion of federal dominion. And as he was very good at clearly presenting the logic and making restrained, narrowly defined judgments, this worked well for many years. Taney earned a reputation for being an excellent jurist.

But as the decades passed, slavery became much more of a pressing issue. The abolitionist view had gained much more credence in the North and West, while in the South, those in power were pro-slavery hardliners, who not only wanted to preserve their “peculiar institution” but expand it. Due to the country’s development pattern, the South had had a disproportionate influence on the Supreme Court and Congress, but this was waning as more “free” states joined the Union. Taney became more and more disgruntled with Yankees who sat on a moral high horse when it came to Southerners and slavery. He feared a civil war.

Then came the Dred Scott case. To vastly simplify the case, Mr. Scott was a slave who had been taken north to a free state, and under that place’s laws had become free. After spending some time as a free man there and in a free territory, Dred Scott voluntarily returned to his home state–but under their laws he was still a slave, a piece of property. He was filing to have his freedom recognized.

Chief Justice Taney saw an opportunity to heal the wounds of the nation and head off war by settling the question of slavery once and for all. Now, had he followed his usual custom and ruled on the narrow question of “is Dred Scott still a slave?” Taney could have relied on ample precedent and the Tenth Amendment to say “yes.” It would have been an unjust outcome, but not particularly controversial.

But instead Roger B. Taney created a long decision which selectively cited various Founders and colonial/early state laws to claim that the Founding Fathers had never intended for black people to have any rights under the United States Constitution, and therefore, black people did not in fact have any Constitutional rights and were hereby prohibited from bringing suit in Federal court. (Any rights granted by individual states ended at the state’s borders.)

Much to Taney’s surprise, this decision was vastly unpopular outside the slave states, seen as unjust, and only inflamed passions. Another Supreme Court Justice actually resigned in protest! One of the politicians energized by the decision was Abraham Lincoln, who mistakenly believed it was part of a conspiracy to force slavery to be legal in all parts of the United States.

Lincoln was in fact a moderate on slavery by comparison to the fire-breathing Radical Republicans, but by the time he ran for president, the slave states would not accept anything but a full-throated support for slavery from a potential president. The Democrats split their votes between their own moderate and a pro-slavery candidate, and so Lincoln won. The Southern states began to secede.

Chief Justice Taney believed that a state was constitutionally allowed to peacefully secede from the Union, while Lincoln did not. The point never got to court, as the Confederate Army fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, turning the secession into a civil war.

President Lincoln was faced with many difficult decisions during the Civil War, some of which he attempted to solve with his war powers. Sometimes he overstepped, as with suspending habeus corpus for civilians accused of aiding the enemy. The now elderly and ailing Taney tried to rein in what he saw as abuse of power with his decisions. The Chief Justice died in October of 1864, with the great conflict he’d tried to stave off still raging. Salaries for Supreme Court justices were actually quite low, and he died in poverty, his female heirs having to find jobs despite their own advanced age.

President Lincoln brought the Civil War to a successful conclusion, but did not survive to win the peace.

This book was interesting because of its long and in-depth look at one of the people usually remembered only for his one huge mistake, winding up in the “villain” column of history. There are no pictures, but decent endnotes and a full index. I found the writing readable, but mostly adequate.

Recommended for history buffs, particularly those interested in the lead up to the American Civil War, and those who want to know more about the Supreme Court and how it functioned.

[Jeremy Perron · Rating 5 out of 5]

In my pervious review, I described Simon's other work, What Kind of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the Epic Struggle to Create a United States, as the struggle between two American icons: Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall. This book is slightly different, although it also features the struggles of a famous president with the chief justice of the Supreme Court; this book features an American Icon vs. an American villain. It is unusual for me to name any historical figure a villain, even when they hold views I find deplorable, because to me that would be strong presentism. However, when I find the presence of such a historical figure to be so negative that it makes almost erases any good points they might have had, I feel obligated to call them out for what they are and that is a villain. I realize that mine is not a perfect system and one could go on and on over the details of various figures, but with this acknowledged I still say: that Roger Taney was an outright villain in American history whose presence we could have done without. Yes, I realize that he was useful to President Jackson during the Bank War, but I think President Jackson would found someone else to fill the role that he needed played, and his evil role in issuing the Dred Scot decision far overrides any good that he performed in his career. While Lincoln is the icon, who saved the Union and ended legalized slavery in the United States.

Simon gives Taney a fairer treatment than I would give him, detailing a good deal of his career showing that he was at one point a half-way decent chief justice. Someone who entered the national stage and had participated in big events, back when Lincoln was still a young man trying to find his place in the world. This makes his sudden turn during the Dred Scot case even more shocking. A man who at one point had earned praise of even those who had been Andrew Jackson's opponents suddenly turns away from law and reason. Simon describes how Taney's decision completely upends almost three quarters of a century of precedent, in order just to satisfy his personnel feelings.

"Taney did not offer a single source of proof for his sweeping generalization. He lumped all of those who signed the Declaration and the Constitution together, the slaveholders of the South with the opponents of slavery in the North. He dismissed the idea that the Declaration of Independence's proclamation that `all men are created equal' should be taken literally. Blacks were permanently excluded, according to Taney, because they were a degraded class." p.122

Taney attempt to protect slavery though the court backfired on him. Instead, it only intensified things, and cost the Supreme Court under his leadership the respect of a great deal of the nation. The case was brought up in the Lincoln/Douglas debates where Lincoln accuses Presidents Buchanan and Pierce, Senator Douglas, and Taney himself of being in a conspiracy to force slavery over the whole nation. Lincoln was of course exaggerating, but his star was rising. Lincoln would win the election of 1860 in a close four-way race in which he would receive less the forty percent of the vote. Before Lincoln ever took the oath of office states were already abandoning the Union to avoid living under a president who was going to be openly hostile to the cause of slavery.

Lincoln began to take steps to save the Union, having avoided a mob in Baltimore, things started to take an even more dangerous turn with riots and state officials even trying to persuade Lincoln not to have troops at all in Maryland, to which Lincoln chastises them for.

"Maryland remained dangerously volatile. Secessionists in northern Maryland destroyed railroad bridges between Washington and the North and cut telegraph lines. The state legislature, dominated by southern sympathizers, was scheduled to meet in Frederick on April 26. Anticipating a secessionist vote, General Scott recommended to the president that he be given the authority to arrest secessionist politicians in advance. If Maryland voted to secede, he told Scott, he would act decisively to put down the rebellion with `the bombardment of their cities--and of course the suspension of habeas corpus.' Those drastic measures were not immediately necessary. The legislature did not vote to secede. Meanwhile, northern troops managed to filter into the capital in increasing numbers by a circuitous route, first ferrying down Chesapeake Bay to Annapolis, then boarding trains to Washington." p.186

Even with the arrival of the Union army, Simon describes and environment in which the threat of sabotage was still ever present. With that, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and had military commanders arrest suspected secessionists and hold them without trial. This would give Taney, traveling circuit, an ability to undermine the Union cause from within. He ordered the military to hand John Merryman, the army commander, General Cadwalader, refused to hand him over citing orders from the president himself. In his famous decision, Ex. Parte Merryman, Taney strips to the president down to the bare minimum of constitutional authority. Taney's new position is one that clashed with his own history and views on presidential power and government authority.

"To achieve his goal of proving that Congress alone could suspend the writ, Taney systematically reduced the president's constitutional powers to Lilliputian proportions. Here Taney displayed the artistry of a partisan trial lawyer rather than the detachment of a judge. His interpretation was starkly at odds with Taney's own reading of presidential power when he had been President Jackson's Attorney General. In defending Jackson's broad constitutional powers in the Bank War, Attorney General Taney discovered deep wells of presidential authority, totally independent of both Congress and the Supreme Court. And Chief Justice Taney, in an earlier judicial opinion that raised an issue much closer to Lincoln's plight in 1861, declared that the governor of Rhode Island could use martial law to put down an armed insurrection. The power to do so, Taney wrote in works equally applicable to the president of the United States, `is essential to the existence of every government, essential to the preservation of order and free institutions, and is necessary to the State of the Union as to any other government.'" p.192-3

So low was the public opinion in the Roger Taney, that Lincoln just ignored the order and proceeded as he intended to do. Lincoln would win the war and would receive monuments built in his name for generations. Taney would die in 1864, and be replaced by Salmon P. Chase, formally Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury. I strongly recommended James Simon's book to anyone who is interested in some of the legal aspects of America's Civil War.

[Penelope · Rating 5 out of 5]

I didn't expect much from this book because it seemed to be very limited in scope (from the title) but it turned out to be a treasure trove of information. The insight I got into Taney's motives and beliefs changed the way I perceived the Dred Scott decision. I still believe it was the worst ruling of the court ever, but at least now I understand "What was he thinking?". And the fascinating details about Lincoln and his winding path to the presidency was very well told, very accessible. And the part about the president's war powers was so interesting I got another book about Lincoln - A Constitutional Biography - to learn more about that. I still hate Buchanan, hahaha! Nothing seems to change that.

[Brian Willis · Rating 4 out of 5]

A dual biography of sorts focusing on legal matters, this much needed book focuses on the battles between Lincoln and Taney. Readers of the Civil War will find much of this review but the book begins to sparkle when we get in depth analysis of the Dred Scott decision as well as the legal battles between Lincoln (clearly using new powers in wartime) and the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Taney who sought to curtail them. Good stuff in the second half.

[Scott Resnik · Rating 3 out of 5]

A solid overview of the main legal issues and challenges that Lincoln faced during the Civil War. Author’s decision to try to salvage some of Taney’s reputation as a jurist notwithstanding his infamous Dred Scott decision was unconvincing and has not aged well. Overall a good introduction to the subject matter.

[Cassius Rovenstine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Professor James F. Simon labors mightily in this parallel biography to present Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, author of the infamous Dred Scott decision, in a light favorable enough to make him worthy of sharing a title with America’s most venerated president. But even with Simon’s efforts to demonstrate the respectability of Taney’s legal mind and career, the sickly old chief justice still comes across as a very small man, guided by petty regional and political loyalties in his legal opinions on matters of slavery and secession. He comes across as small, also, in relation to President Abraham Lincoln. This is not a story akin to that of Chief Justice Hughes, who at the height of the New Deal was the only man in Washington capable of outmaneuvering the talented President Franklin Roosevelt. There is no elaborate game of political chess between equals with Taney and Lincoln. Taney is but a gnat, effortlessly swatted away by the more clever and powerful President.

This is something of a shame because Taney was not always wrong and Lincoln was not always right. On the issue of the President’s power to unilaterally suspend the writ of habeas corpus in particular, Taney clearly had the better end of the constitutional argument. But by that time, he had disgraced himself such with Dred Scott that the President felt empowered to blatantly ignore the Chief Justice’s orders – indeed, due to the North’s toxic opinion of Taney, Lincoln would have imperiled his own popularity had he not done so. Perhaps a less tainted chief justice would have been able to curb some of Lincoln’s wartime excesses.

Due to the imbalance between the two title characters, the story presented in Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney lacks the drama of a showdown between equally matched historical giants. It is, however, a story that deserves to be told, and it is told here with succinctness, clarity, and remarkable fairness to both sides.

[Dale · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting head-to-head biography about two gentlemen who went head-to-head quite often during the Civil War.

James F. Simon's Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney shines an interesting light on two overlooked aspects of 19th century American history.

The first overlooked aspect is the Supreme Court, specifically the person of Roger Taney (pronounced Tawney), the Chief Justice most famous for what may be known for all time as his single worst legal opinion, and one of the most controversial and ill-considered opinions of all time - Dred Scott.

Simon tells the story of Taney's life, including his surprisingly liberal views on slavery and his legal defense of blacks who were seized illegally to be sold into slavery, the fact that he freed most of his family's slaves and even provided a modest pension for the elderly ones. Taney even defended an the rights of an abolitionist preacher to preach his message in Maryland. However, it seems that those opinions all changed once slavery became THE issue of the 1840s and 1850s. His views seem to have hardened in response to outside pressure on the institution of slavery...

Read more at: http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2011/...

[Blake Maddux · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent piece of scholarship and a highly-readable popular history. I learned and re-learned a great deal. (Page 217 is especially enlightning.) If nothing else, grab a copy from the library-or curl up with one at a bookstore-and read the superb Epilogue.

[Rocky · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not nearly as compelling as I had hoped. It is a decent read, but did not really bring to life these starkly different men.

[David Beeson · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was a fine idea of James F. Simon’s, to draw a parallel between the lives of Abraham Lincoln, arguably the best of all US Presidents, and Roger Taney, certainly the most controversial of Chief Justices.

Simon is particularly well suited for the task, since he’s both a historian and a lawyer. The same formula worked well in the first book of his I came across, and admired as much as this one: What kind of Nation traced the contrasts and conflicts between Thomas Jefferson and Chief Justice John Marshall.

Roger Taney was an Andrew Jackson appointee. Lincoln was a long time admirer of Henry Clay. Taney and Lincoln can be seen as the heirs, a generation on, of the political antagonism between those two outstanding figures who dominated the 1830s and 1840s.

Taney represents the tradition of the Democratic Party of his day, committed to the exercise of power by and in the name of the people (or at least that portion of the people that was white and male), and an equal commitment to states rights and more specifically the rights of Southern states. The South felt itself increasingly dominated by the North and West with their burgeoning wealth and populations. And when we talk about defending the South in the period up to the Civil War, we inevitably mean defending slavery.

Here we meet one of the paradoxes about Taney that is central to Simon’s study: Taney, a Marylander, freed his own slaves. He clearly felt badly enough about human bondage not to want to engage in it himself. However, that could never override his feeling that the Federal government had no right, under the Constitution, to legislate on slavery – certainly not in the States where it was legal, but not in any other part of the US either. It was a matter for States to decide for themselves.

Taney’s views weren’t always rigid. Simon, for instance, points to the case of the Amistad. This was a Spanish ship that fell into US hands after its cargo of slaves, taken illegally in Africa, had risen and seized control. Justice Joseph Story, an adversary of Taney's mentor Jackson, wrote the judgement of the US Supreme Court. He ruled against the ship owners and in favour of the return of the slaves to Africa, on the grounds that the initial seizure had been against the law. Taney sided with this judgement despite, as Simon underlines, his view that slavery was not a matter that ought to be determined at federal level.

In some respects, Lincoln saw things similarly. It’s true that he loathed slavery: “I hate it for the monstrous injustice of slavery itself” is a ringing declaration quoted by Simon. Even so, he was no abolitionist. He made it repeatedly clear that he did not feel the government should interfere with slavery in states where it existed, but slavery should not be allowed to expand beyond those states.

Both men also held similar racial views, at least initially. As Simon points out, Lincoln “agreed with Southerners that the black man was inferior to the white man politically and socially.”

In a sense, the starting points for their political evolution weren’t that far apart. But Simon shows how the pressure the slavery question exerted on the United States as a whole forced them increasingly apart.

The greater damage was done to Taney, whose reputation was forever tarnished by the infamous Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court in 1857. Taney wrote the majority judgement. The concrete issue at stake concerned the right of Dred Scott, a slave, to plead in Federal Court for his freedom, which he claimed he obtained when his master took him into free States and Territories (land belonging to the US but not yet organised as States) before returning him to Missouri.

Taney, however, went far beyond this single question. Aside from whether moving a slave to a free portion of the US freed him, Taney made it clear that no black, slave or free, could ever sue in a US court. Indeed, as Simon writes, “Taney asserted that Dred Scott and every other American black, whether free or not, was forever destined to remain in a degraded status in civilised society and could never rise to the level of national citizen.” In Taney’s own words, blacks “…had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” They never had, in his view, and the founders of the US had made that clear – the words “all men are created equal” evidently applied only to white men, as proved by their actions in allowing the enslaving of blacks. If they could be enslaved, they were obviously degraded.

Simon also shows that in this position Taney, despite his clear dislike of slavery itself, was not taking a novel position: already in 1832, as Andrew Jackson’s Attorney General, he had taken a similar position on the impossibility of black citizenship.

Moreover, in his Dred Scott decision, Taney announced that Congress had no right under the Constitution to ban slavery in new territories of the United States. That was a decision that could only be taken by the population of those territories, as they applied for statehood. So slavery could expand beyond the States where it was already legal.

This was too much for Lincoln. He drew heavily on the dissenting view on the Supreme Court expressed by Justice Curtis, to argue that Taney was profoundly mistaken on the citizenship question. Lincoln “honed in on Taney’s claim that the African Americans were purposely excluded by the framers of the Constitution. Contrary to Taney’s historical argument, said Lincoln, Justice Curtis demonstrates in his dissent ‘with so much particularity as to leave no doubt of its truth’ that free blacks voted in five of the original states and, in proportion to their numbers, ‘had the same part in making the Constitution that the white people had.’”

But Lincoln becomes even more powerful in his rhetoric on the question of general principle. Again, Simon quotes his words, on whether the proclamation in the Declaration of Independence that all men were created equal, applied only to a single race:

I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal – equal in ‘certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ This they said, and this [they] meant.

Both men disliked slavery. Both men felt that blacks were racially inferior. But in the face of the pressures to break up the union that the slavery question would generate, Lincoln increasingly evolved towards a view of that inferiority as smaller than had been previously asserted, and less significant. Certainly, unlike Taney, he felt the fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness belonged to them as much as to whites. By the end of the Civil War, Lincoln was already backing voting rights for “more intelligent” blacks (whatever that may mean) and any who had fought for the Union. It would have been fascinating to see how far he would have gone towards embracing racial equality, had an assassin’s bullet not struck him down so prematurely.

Taney, on the other hand, reacted to the degenerating atmosphere of his country, by then only three years from secession and Civil War, by solidifying his stance and arguing for it more powerfully than ever. Or perhaps I should say intensely, rather than powerfully: as Simon makes clear, his arguments are badly built and draw on far too little authority to be even remotely convincing.

Lincoln had to react not only to the claims concerning black citizenship but, and even more strongly, to the notion that Congress could not legislate on slavery in the territories. Here was a particularly dangerous new development. Like many moderates in the free States, his position that slavery should be allowed to continue in the states where it was legal, was based on the conviction that it could never spread beyond them. But if Congress could not legislate on the subject, then it would be possible to see the peculiar institution spread across new States. Where would that end? Might it not even be reintroduced in the States that had banned it?

That was intolerable.

Between them, therefore, Lincoln and Taney drew the battle lines over which the Civil War would be fought. And one of the great features of Simon’s book is how he traces the continuing conflict right through that War. This part of their common history takes us into further ironies, for Lincoln undoubtedly pushed his notion of Presidential war powers a great deal further than many might have believed, or even believe today, they should really go.

There was a time, for instance, when Washington DC was in serious danger of being entirely isolated from the rest of the Union, with Virginia already seceded and Maryland, which surrounds the city on its other three sides, in serious danger of following suit. Lincoln was not above arresting secessionists in Maryland to prevent them acting on that threat. In these, and other similar cases throughout the war, Taney took a strong individual rights stance against Lincoln. It’s clear that on many occasions, he was driven by his undoubted southern sympathies, but it would be unfair to deny the value of having basic rights ably and actively defended at the highest judicial level, even in war time.

All these ironies, these great conflicts, these resolving and evolving contradictions, Simon traces with clarity and elegance. It’s a delight to read this excellent book. It shines a strong light on some of the greatest questions of their time, and on principles that still resonate today.



PS. The audio version.

As well as the printed book, I also listened to the version from Audible, read by Richard Allen. I enjoyed listening to it, although I found some of the inaccuracies of reading quite breathtaking: Salmon P. Chase became “Salmon P. Chance of Ohio”; it seems Lincoln wasn’t keen on “sectional welfare”, where the printed book suggests what he rejected was “sectional warfare”; I also liked the reference to the “130-man” Army of the Potomac, which somehow managed to lose 17,000 men.

I only wish these were the only errors. And even if they had been, I feel audio books deserve editing as carefully as their printed equivalents. Why are these faults allowed to stand?

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is probably the most even-handed book that one can imagine that deals with the contentious and still-controversial aspects of slavery, secession, and the war powers of the presidency.  Although the author's feelings about Chief Justice Taney are far more favorable than my own [1], the author manages to find a way to praise Lincoln for his restraint and point out the unprecedented circumstances he was up against as the president of the United States in the face of a massive rebellion against the legitimacy of his authority while also praising a corrupt border Southern aristocrat for his desire to preserve civil liberties even in the face of rebellion and civil war.  This is by no means an easy achievement, and the author deserves considerable credit for sticking close to his sources as well as drawing useful parallels between Lincoln's behavior and those of prior presidents like Adams and Jackson and later presidents like FDR and George W Bush, which puts Lincoln in a generally positive light.  To be sure, it is not a hagiography of Lincoln, but it is a positive account of both Lincoln and to a lesser extent of Taney, and that the author could speak consistently favorably of both men is a rare achievement.

In terms of its structure, this almost 300 page book is a parallel biography of sorts, looking at the background of both Taney and Lincoln and then the ways in which their lives intersected from the late 1850's onward.  The author does an excellent job of placing the men in context of their times and their political beliefs, and showed both of them as being men of graciousness who were able to win over political foes through moderation and tact, for the most part.  The author shows Taney's own devolution in political thought from a period in his youth where he freed his slaves and defended an abolitionist minister in court to his period late in life where his insecurity about the position of the South relative to the North led him to seek to protect slavery and defend the legitimacy of secession and even treasonous behavior against the government in favor of those rebellious secessionists.  Likewise, the author shows Lincoln and his restraint in dealing with civil rights compared with other presidents who used the expansive war powers of the office to drastically curtail freedoms, and shows how he felt compelled to stick up for military commanders who often behaved recklessly and precipitously without his advice or consent.

Overall, this is a book that ought to appeal to readers who have an interest in the history of civil liberties and have a wish to deal with an even-handed account of the tension between the authority of the president to act in such a way that the country may be preserved in the face of brutal conflict and the authority of the Supreme Court to restrict and restrain the conduct of the executive with regards to civil liberties.  One may, for example, lament the way that martial law was declared somewhat excessively by many generals in the Civil War and especially the way that the 20th and 21st centuries have seen a massive erosion in civil liberties in the face of unending undeclared wars against Communism and Islamist terror, while also praising Lincoln for his decisiveness and restraint.  Likewise, one may profess a desire that civil liberties be made more secure without having much sympathy for the way that Taney's reputation was irreparably harmed as a result of his immensely unwise decision in the Dred Scott case.  Still, whether one is a huge fan of Lincoln or not or one is an immense critic of Taney or not, this book provides a great deal of deep reflection and considered historical judgment on the context of freedom and liberty in the period before and during the Civil War, a subject likely of interest to many.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2012...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2010...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2010...

[Pamela Mclaren · Rating 3 out of 5]

I make no claim as being anywhere near an authority on the issues of writing serious nonfiction/biographies, but I do know what I have enjoyed in the past.

The review of the backgrounds of both Lincoln and Taney are offered at the beginning of this book an offer us a new perspective, particularly in relation to Abraham Lincoln, that few of us who are not history buffs would know about either of these men. And offered as they are, they offer valuable clues to how both men had such an important impact on each other and on history.

Especially, the background an court decisions of Chef Justice Roger B. Taney. His name was familiar to me, but I couldn't tell you why, so James F. Simon has opened my eyes to how the framing of a Supreme Court decision can affect how it is seen and interpreted throughout history.

Simon has created that atmosphere where we see where Taney was coming from and how he let his southern roots show too much as he wrote the defining Dred Scott opinion of 1857 and how it led most assuredly to the Civil War. He had to live with the decision for the rest of his days, as with his belief that secession and a division of the United States was right. History records the issue of secession and slavery but in my schooling, Dred Scott was not really mentioned, nor how people of those times thought that secession would work.

This work adds to the multiple layers of how enslaved people were seen, even by Lincoln who thought they should be free, but that they should be sent some where else because even in his eyes they were not equal to white men. Simon also works through the issues exposed during a war within a country, the suspending of such rights as the writ of habeas corpus, censoring of the mail and the use of military courts to try civilians for treason. Variations of some of these issues — such as interning Japanese Americans during World War II — show us that we still don't have solid answers about these.

And this is one of the most important aspects of this book in my opinion. We as a nation keep believing that we will never have to face the type of division seen in the Civil War — and yet we do so. Similarly, the divisions between the North and South over slavery and state's rights, are reminders that America has indeed faced/and now face, such divisions since then.

I believe I have gained a better understanding — a little bit — to these issues and how American leadership comes to them, and a realization that while the Civil War resolved in the continuation of the United States and slavery was abolished, we had more battled facing similar issues and that many flare up over and over again. When they do, we need to look back and explore whether the ends did justify the means. And will the decisions our leaders make will always result in the ends that we need.

[Steven Meyers · Rating 4 out of 5]

If the reader has read other material about President Lincoln, they will find Mr. Simon's 2006 book to be a quick overview of familiar actions taken by the president. A few of those deeds wound up in front of the Supreme Court and are discussed by the author. What I found informative was the material about Chief Justice Roger Taney. Beyond his notorious Dred Scott decision, the judge made cameos in other works I've read involving either President Lincoln or the Civil War, and he was typically depicted as a crotchety ole raving racist. Mr. Simon helps to present a more well-rounded picture of Taney. I was quite surprised at his personal actions when it came to his own slaves and attitudes about the peculiar institution.

Our nation's fifth Chief Justice served twenty-eight years until his death at 87 as the Head Kahuna on the Supreme Court. He was well regarded by both political parties and viewed as a stable rational beacon during the run-up decades before the war. The boneheaded Dred Scott ruling which he penned in 1857 destroyed his non-partisan reputation. He had strong opinions about concentrated economic power, slavery, and especially state rights. Mr. Simon focuses on the legal quandaries involved in such events as the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act which all wrestled with slavery. Also covered are the constitutionality of President Lincoln's naval blockades and, of course, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The book shows that selecting new Supreme Court nominees was also, like today, highly political back in the "good ole days."

During the Civil War, the Supreme Court and civil rights were diminished. Hey, our country's future was at stake. There was little tolerance about complaints the government was farting around with our civil liberties when Americans were dropping like flies on both sides because of the war. Chief Justice Taney's objectivity wasn't so great, either, when it came to his beloved South. Man oh man, his Dred Scott ruling, which occurred three years before the outbreak of war, on African-American's place in civilized society did not pussyfoot around. Mr. Simon's conclusions were thoughtful but I felt the book lacked enough examples addressing other Taney court rulings to support his assessment of the man's judicial career. Overall, 'Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney' is a good book for readers who are looking for a Cliff-Notes sorta take on Lincoln, Taney, and the important judicial rulings during the Civil War. The author, who is a professor of law at New York Law School, avoids writing in a boring academic style. It's a fast read. Your typical vocabulary slacker such as myself need not worry too much about having to reach very often for a dictionary.

[Ron Tenney · Rating 4 out of 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.

[Ron Ross · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney is a thought-provoking book by James Simon. The theme of this book are the lives of President Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney and how they were affected especially during the Civil War. I have read several books on the life of President Lincoln and notice but a few facts in his life that I had not read before, but Chief Justice Taney about the only thing I was aware was he was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court during the Dred Scott Decision in 1857. The author gives great back ground of both men showing both their distinct differences and their views on the Civil War. Taney’s view as a southern slave owner and Lincoln as the great emancipator, even though Taney had eventually freed his slaves by the time the Civil War had begun. Taney presided on the Supreme Court as the 5th Chief Justice for twenty-eight years. He was the Attorney General for Andrew Jackson and nominated for Chief Justice by President Jackson. Taney felt that Slaves were better taken care by slave owners than allowed their freedom. This book is a definite read for anyone interested in the study of Lincoln it shows how he was able to work around the terrible issues of the Civil War with individuals like Taney that thought he was the Law.

[Jim Firestone · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book looks at the many specific constitutional law issues raised in the period leading up to and including the US Civil War. As it turns out President Lincoln and the Supreme Court Chief Justice of the time found themselves fully on opposite sides of most of these issues.

Perhaps most importantly, Lincoln felt the Constitution allowed for no possibility of a State seceding from the Union; while the Chief Justice was sure the Constitution gave the Federal Government no power to stop it.

Clearly, reasonably intelligent people disagreed on this point. How different the world would be if Lincoln hadn’t prevailed over those who felt as Taney did.

Well written and fascinating. I wish Simon had gone into more depth on just how widespread Taney’s viewpoint was held throughout the North leading up to and during the war. Could this nation really have split into two?

[Hank Pharis · Rating 2 out of 5]

(NOTE: I'm stingy with stars. For me 2 stars means a good book or a B. 3 stars means a very good book or a B+. 4 stars means an outstanding book or an A {only about 5% of the books I read merit 4 stars}. 5 stars means an all time favorite or an A+ {Only one of 400 or 500 books rates this!).

The great news is that I can listen to a book a day at work. The bad news is that I can’t keep up with decent reviews. So I’m going to give up for now and just rate them. I hope to come back to some of the most significant things I listen to and read them and then post a review.

The good news is that this can help you understand the thinking of racists at the time. The bad news is that the Supreme Court was dominated by racists. Justice Tanney was not a good guy.

[The Logophile · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read several books about Lincoln & the Civil War, but never seem to tire of them. Lincoln is such a complex, unique, interesting, funny, melancholy individual that I continue to learn new things about him in every book I read. It never gets old. I was also surprised by many of the things I learned about Taney. In my mind, he had gone down in history as a villain (in my mind, he still is), but there were a few things that shocked me enough that I had to read them again. They just didn't make sense. My only complaint, if you can even call it that, is that these 2 men never really crossed paths. They just lived at the same time. I was under the impression that these 2 would actually interact & spar a bit, but they never really did. I guess I just expected something else.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fine book, just what you would want. A legal scholar weighs in on the legal controversies in and around Lincoln and Taney. I've read many books on the Civil War and they usually gloss over the legal problems. This one centers in on them. Great details. I was familiar with just about all the details concerning Lincoln, but it was good to meet Justice Taney.

Juxtaposing two characters really helps me to get the feel of the times. This author does a terrific job at this. I'm planning on reading at least one more of his books.

[Phillip Lund · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author's perspective of Lincoln is distinctive and realistic. Lincoln carried a tremendous burden in maintaining political order and fighting a nightmare war. The American constitutional crisis was magnified by an embittered and angry Taney. This book brought into focus the complex interactions the issues of slavery, states' rights, and nationalism. This is a powerful story that serves for further legal, political, and moral understanding.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

It doesn't seem to matter the subject or person but I always find that things are never as simple as I had originally suspected. The 1854 Supreme Court decision comes down to us in a certain way and we make assumptions about that person but tend to leave out the detail. It is an interesting thing to understand who the entire person was and the steps which led to his decision in that case.

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

An intriguing account of Taney’s and Lincoln’s political view points and an enjoyable accounting of the Lincoln/Douglas debates. Loved Associate Justice Benjamin Curtis’s (P 123-130) contrarian judicial opinion to Taney’s majority opinion in the Dred Scott case. Fun read.

[Paul Gibson · Rating 4 out of 5]

An easy quick read. The author take a look at the history leading up to throughout the Civil War. It was an interesting way of looking at the way our government functioned or disfunction-ed during the rise and fall of Lincoln, Taney and the union.

[David Engel · Rating 2 out of 5]

My jaded view of Taney and his...ahem...dreadful Dred Scott decision was only mildly softened by what I learned in this book. Lincoln's use of power in war seems more appropriate as I learn more.