Justice Grier occupied the bench during the nations most tumultuous period, rendering opinions in various landmark cases, one of which is alleged to have prompted the inception of the Civil War, Dred Scott. He was bitterly denounced, by abolitionists, for both his adamant support of fugitive slave laws and his concurring opinion in the Scott decision. Justice Grier was accused of engaging in unethical behavior, as the result of intimate correspondence concerning pending legal matters with President Buchanan, throughout the duration of the Dred Scott case. Grier had written Buchanan alluding to privileged information, for such action he was charged with engaging in a major breach of court etiquette. He kept Buchanan fully aware of the courts deliberations in the Scott case by stating that “there will therefore be six, if not seven, who will decide the compromise law of 1820 to be of non-affect. But the decisions will not be delivered before Friday the sixth of March.”[1] The significance of the mentioning of the date referred to the fact that Buchanan was to be sworn into office on the fourth of March, therefore this information better allowed him an opportunity to address the nation on his inauguration.
The issue of slavery remained at the forefront of politics at that time period and this information gave Buchanan an opportunity to quell expected abolitionist disapproval, at the outcome of this controversial case, before a decision was rendered. Justice Grier’s behavior was neither inappropriate nor preemptive, “it was not infrequent for members of the court to write intimate friends and family of the probable outcome of a pending case.”[2] Grier and Buchanan had both been from Pennsylvania and held affluent positions in that states legal and political arenas, shared the same educational background, and maintained personal correspondence dating back to the 1840’s. This correspondence had, on many occasions, involved their similar views on the adherence to fugitive slave laws and the direct affront that Pennsylvania legislation had developed against federal law. Many northerners had established Personal Liberty Laws, state laws which looked to block the return of fugitive slaves. These laws required trials before juries to establish the validity of slave owners claims against runaways. These trials were antagonistic to southerners, northern juries could not act impartially because they despised the institution of slavery and as a result denied legitimate southern claims. In 1826 a Pennsylvania Personal Liberty Law banned state wide assistance in the return of fugitive slaves. Grier believed that “Personal Liberty Laws compelled state officers to disregard the injunction of the constitution.”[3] Grier was anti-slavery although he respected the principles of the constitution and recognized that landmark documents support of the system of slavery. He often viewed abolitionists as “agitators who infest other portions of the Union and, with mad zeal, are plotting its ruin.”[4] He was charged with possessing a subservience to slave interests throughout his antebellum judicial career, although he would approach the war period as an anti-secessionist and staunch supporter of the Union.
President James Buchanan’s earlier professional career was spent practicing law and politics in his home state of Pennsylvania. Buchanan had won the U.S. Presidency in the 1856 Election, carrying all of the southern states except Maryland. Similar to Taney and Grier, Buchanan was not a pro-slavery advocate although he recognized the constitutions support of that institution and greatly believed in the government’s role to protect that right. Throughout Buchanan’s early political career he would not bend from his belief in upholding the Federal Fugitive Slave Act, although his home state of Pennsylvania outlawed slavery. Slavery was the premier political issue of the election of 1856 and Buchanan pledged “that if elected he would make the great aim of his administration to give peace and safety the Union while ensuring security for the South.”[5] Impartial historians have noted that Buchanan “desired a union of the states as equals” and that he fondly looked upon southerners as having “submitted to the aggressions of the abolitionists with a patience that might well challenge the envy of the world.”[6] Buchanan’s view of the abolitionists was similar to many even minded political and judicial thinkers of his day, abolitionists possessed a type of fanatic zeal that threatened disunion to a degree much more severe than secessionist states ever had embodied. Buchanan stated that the “great object of my administration will be to arrest if possible the agitation of the slavery question and destroy sectional parties…should a kind of providence enable me to succeed in my efforts to restore harmony to the Union, I shall feel that I have not lived in vain.”[7]
Footnotes
[1] Dictionary of American Biography (NY: MacMillan Publishing, 1941) 167.
[2] Dictionary of American Biography (NY: MacMillan Publishing, 1941) 613.
[3] Carl Swisher. The History of the Supreme Court of the United States: The Taney Period 1836-1864 (NY: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1974) 573.
[4] Carl Swisher. The History of the Supreme Court of the United States: The Taney Period 1836-1864 (NY: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1974) 575.
[5] Philip Auchampaugh. James Buchanan: A Political Portrait 1856 (Reno, Nevada: University Press, 1946) 19.
[6] Philip Auchampaugh. James Buchanan: A Political Portrait 1856 (Reno, Nevada: University Press, 1946) 26.
[7] Philip Auchampaugh. James Buchanan: A Political Portrait 1856 (Reno, Nevada: University Press, 1946) 41.