WESTMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
February 25th 2007
Rev. Mark R. Bradshaw-Miller
“The Life and Witness of Roger Taney and Dred Scott”
Revelation 3:14-22
During this month we have celebrated a couple of anniversaries which occur in 2007. The first one was the two-hundred and fiftieth anniversary of African Americans membership in the Presbyterian Church. The second was the hundredth anniversary of the first African American Presbyterian congregation; the “First African Presbyterian Church” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. However, this year is also another anniversary. However, this anniversary is not one we want to celebrate. This year, in fact next month, marks the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Dred Scott case. Since this event will put Saint Louis in the spotlight, we must face the question: What is the enduring legacy of something many people would simply like to forget? In order to understand the legacy of the Dred Scott decision, we must spend a few moments revisiting this period in American history.
In looking at this landmark decision, I want to focus two people involved in the case. This first is Dred Scott who was born into slavery in 1795 in Virginia. In 1830 the family who owned Dred Scott moved to Saint Louis, MO. Shortly after their move, the family sold Dred Scott to Dr. John Emerson because they needed money. When Dr. Emerson died, Dred Scott sued the widow of Emerson for his freedom. Dred Scott won his case in the local court but lost the battle in a Missouri state court.
At the time of the defeat in state court, Dr. Emerson’s widow had remarried. Her new husband was an abolitionist who had convinced her of the moral obligation to release Scott from slavery. However, when the case was lost in state court a strategic decision was made to put a hold on those plans. The goal was to push this case all the way to the Supreme Court. They seemed to believe that the state case would be overturned and a victory gained for the abolitionist movement. However, things turned out different than expected. Roger Taney, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, surprised all by his ruling. But before we get to the decision, let us turn to the person of Roger Taney.
Roger Taney was born in 1777 to a wealthy slave-holding family in Maryland. His rise to the highest court in the land was almost derailed by the objections of Henry Clay, John Calhoun, and even Daniel Webster. However, despite their objections Taney was confirmed and served the second longest tenure of any chief of the court. Despite a number of memorable opinions on the court, he is most commonly known for his opinion on Scott case. And, when many in the abolitionist movement expected a victory in the Scott case, they were shocked by the outcome.
Using what some have called a ‘strict constructionist’ reading of the constitution, Taney came to the conclusion that the, “Constitution permitted unrestricted ownership of black slaves by white U.S. citizens.” Not only this, but he ruled the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and as such permitted and encouraged the expansion of slavery in the new territories. Finally, and most shocking, was the decision that slaves and even free blacks could not be full U.S. citizens. As such, they had no right to sue in federal court. Despite loosing the case, Dred Scott was released from slavery. He spent the remaining part of his life here in Saint Louis, a free man but not a citizen of the United States.
While it would be easy and understandable to believe Roger Taney was pro-slavery through and through, it would be wrong. Surprising as it may seem, in his private writings he wrote about the evils of slavery. He believed that the institution needed to come to an end. However, Taney believed that the Federal Courts did not have the jurisdiction and that it was an issue of state’s rights. Taney believed that the end of slavery, the institution he believed was evil, would have to be ended through moderate steps so as not to cause social unrest. In fact, Taney actually believed that his decision would help to bring calm to a divided nation. It turns out, that he could not have been more wrong.
It may seem odd to mention the life and witness of Roger Taney in the same breath with that of Dred Scott. In fact, it may even seem reckless on my part. After all, Roger Taney was not only on the wrong side of history, but he foolishly believed that slavery would be brought to an end without a struggle. However, we must include him because Taney’s decision and his calls for moderation were not unique in the history of our nation. In fact, the call for moderation and the belief that slavery would end without social unrest was part the nations’ history since its founding.
Many of the founders of the nation believed that slavery should come to an end. However, instead of acting on their beliefs in decisive ways, they compromised their beliefs. And it is true whenever people have sought to remove the bonds of oppression. The call for moderation in the face of oppression is, like it or not, part of our national narrative. It is one which we might prefer to forget but it is ours nonetheless. While the anniversary of the Dred Scott decision brings this back into our national consciousness, it is not the only example in our nations’ history.
Nowhere in our history has this reality been brought to light than with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. letter from a Birmingham Jail. While his letter is quite powerful we must remember that it was written in response to a statement known as; “A Call for Unity.” It was written and signed by eight clergymen from different faith communities. Throughout the one page statement from the clergymen was a call for moderation on the part of those seeking justice. While history allows us the opportunity to condemn those on the wrong side of justice we must take a moment to remember that these clergymen were not too different from many of us. The eight clergy were not rabid segregationists, they were a moderate group comprised of; The Bishop of Alabama, the Auxiliary Bishop, Diocese of Mobile, Birmingham, the Rabbi from Temple Emanu-El, Birmingham, the Alabama Bishop of the Alabama-West Florida Conference, the Bishop of the North Alabama Conference of the Methodist Church, the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Alabama Pastor, a pastor from First Baptist Church, Birmingham, Alabama and finally the Moderator, Synod of the Alabama Presbyterian Church in the United States. These church leaders were not members of the Klan but people of “good will” who believed that the moderate course was the best course for justice.
In his letter, Dr. King challenged the right of these men to “set the timetable for another man’s freedom.” Yet, even as Dr. King challenged these church leaders, he believed they were men of good will who simply could not undertand the suffering they were asking others to endure for the sake of law and order. His letter brought to light, for his time, the reality that the greatest hindrance to justice is not those of ill will, but those who will not act decisively in the in the face of injustice. As we prepare to come face to face with the anniversary of the Dred Scott decision let us remember this lesson from our history.
As a people of faith let us also remember the challenge to the privileged church in Laodicea who had become lukewarm in the faith journey because of their privileges positions. Like Roger Taney who believed slavery was evil but chose moderation over decisive action or the Alabama Clergymen who chose law and order over justice, we too are not immune for the risks and challenges inherent in the places of our privilege. May God give us ears to hear the knock of Christ who stands at the door and invites us to become extreme for the ways of God! And as the scripture says: “Let anyone who has an ear to listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches.” Amen.
February 25th 2007
Rev. Mark R. Bradshaw-Miller
“The Life and Witness of Roger Taney and Dred Scott”
Revelation 3:14-22
During this month we have celebrated a couple of anniversaries which occur in 2007. The first one was the two-hundred and fiftieth anniversary of African Americans membership in the Presbyterian Church. The second was the hundredth anniversary of the first African American Presbyterian congregation; the “First African Presbyterian Church” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. However, this year is also another anniversary. However, this anniversary is not one we want to celebrate. This year, in fact next month, marks the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Dred Scott case. Since this event will put Saint Louis in the spotlight, we must face the question: What is the enduring legacy of something many people would simply like to forget? In order to understand the legacy of the Dred Scott decision, we must spend a few moments revisiting this period in American history.
In looking at this landmark decision, I want to focus two people involved in the case. This first is Dred Scott who was born into slavery in 1795 in Virginia. In 1830 the family who owned Dred Scott moved to Saint Louis, MO. Shortly after their move, the family sold Dred Scott to Dr. John Emerson because they needed money. When Dr. Emerson died, Dred Scott sued the widow of Emerson for his freedom. Dred Scott won his case in the local court but lost the battle in a Missouri state court.
At the time of the defeat in state court, Dr. Emerson’s widow had remarried. Her new husband was an abolitionist who had convinced her of the moral obligation to release Scott from slavery. However, when the case was lost in state court a strategic decision was made to put a hold on those plans. The goal was to push this case all the way to the Supreme Court. They seemed to believe that the state case would be overturned and a victory gained for the abolitionist movement. However, things turned out different than expected. Roger Taney, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, surprised all by his ruling. But before we get to the decision, let us turn to the person of Roger Taney.
Roger Taney was born in 1777 to a wealthy slave-holding family in Maryland. His rise to the highest court in the land was almost derailed by the objections of Henry Clay, John Calhoun, and even Daniel Webster. However, despite their objections Taney was confirmed and served the second longest tenure of any chief of the court. Despite a number of memorable opinions on the court, he is most commonly known for his opinion on Scott case. And, when many in the abolitionist movement expected a victory in the Scott case, they were shocked by the outcome.
Using what some have called a ‘strict constructionist’ reading of the constitution, Taney came to the conclusion that the, “Constitution permitted unrestricted ownership of black slaves by white U.S. citizens.” Not only this, but he ruled the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and as such permitted and encouraged the expansion of slavery in the new territories. Finally, and most shocking, was the decision that slaves and even free blacks could not be full U.S. citizens. As such, they had no right to sue in federal court. Despite loosing the case, Dred Scott was released from slavery. He spent the remaining part of his life here in Saint Louis, a free man but not a citizen of the United States.
While it would be easy and understandable to believe Roger Taney was pro-slavery through and through, it would be wrong. Surprising as it may seem, in his private writings he wrote about the evils of slavery. He believed that the institution needed to come to an end. However, Taney believed that the Federal Courts did not have the jurisdiction and that it was an issue of state’s rights. Taney believed that the end of slavery, the institution he believed was evil, would have to be ended through moderate steps so as not to cause social unrest. In fact, Taney actually believed that his decision would help to bring calm to a divided nation. It turns out, that he could not have been more wrong.
It may seem odd to mention the life and witness of Roger Taney in the same breath with that of Dred Scott. In fact, it may even seem reckless on my part. After all, Roger Taney was not only on the wrong side of history, but he foolishly believed that slavery would be brought to an end without a struggle. However, we must include him because Taney’s decision and his calls for moderation were not unique in the history of our nation. In fact, the call for moderation and the belief that slavery would end without social unrest was part the nations’ history since its founding.
Many of the founders of the nation believed that slavery should come to an end. However, instead of acting on their beliefs in decisive ways, they compromised their beliefs. And it is true whenever people have sought to remove the bonds of oppression. The call for moderation in the face of oppression is, like it or not, part of our national narrative. It is one which we might prefer to forget but it is ours nonetheless. While the anniversary of the Dred Scott decision brings this back into our national consciousness, it is not the only example in our nations’ history.
Nowhere in our history has this reality been brought to light than with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. letter from a Birmingham Jail. While his letter is quite powerful we must remember that it was written in response to a statement known as; “A Call for Unity.” It was written and signed by eight clergymen from different faith communities. Throughout the one page statement from the clergymen was a call for moderation on the part of those seeking justice. While history allows us the opportunity to condemn those on the wrong side of justice we must take a moment to remember that these clergymen were not too different from many of us. The eight clergy were not rabid segregationists, they were a moderate group comprised of; The Bishop of Alabama, the Auxiliary Bishop, Diocese of Mobile, Birmingham, the Rabbi from Temple Emanu-El, Birmingham, the Alabama Bishop of the Alabama-West Florida Conference, the Bishop of the North Alabama Conference of the Methodist Church, the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Alabama Pastor, a pastor from First Baptist Church, Birmingham, Alabama and finally the Moderator, Synod of the Alabama Presbyterian Church in the United States. These church leaders were not members of the Klan but people of “good will” who believed that the moderate course was the best course for justice.
In his letter, Dr. King challenged the right of these men to “set the timetable for another man’s freedom.” Yet, even as Dr. King challenged these church leaders, he believed they were men of good will who simply could not undertand the suffering they were asking others to endure for the sake of law and order. His letter brought to light, for his time, the reality that the greatest hindrance to justice is not those of ill will, but those who will not act decisively in the in the face of injustice. As we prepare to come face to face with the anniversary of the Dred Scott decision let us remember this lesson from our history.
As a people of faith let us also remember the challenge to the privileged church in Laodicea who had become lukewarm in the faith journey because of their privileges positions. Like Roger Taney who believed slavery was evil but chose moderation over decisive action or the Alabama Clergymen who chose law and order over justice, we too are not immune for the risks and challenges inherent in the places of our privilege. May God give us ears to hear the knock of Christ who stands at the door and invites us to become extreme for the ways of God! And as the scripture says: “Let anyone who has an ear to listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches.” Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment