Something About The Pre-war Debates

Surfing the net I came across this discussion about the relative differences between Lincoln and Roger B. Taney on the slavery issue.

Taney wrote the opinion for the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856)
the petition of that brave slave to the supreme court to be granted freedom. The decision of the supreme court that ruled that people of African descent, whether or not they were slaves, could never be citizens of the United States, and that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. It was also ruled that slaves could not sue in court, and that slaves were private property, and, being private property, can’t be taken away from their owners without due process. The decision for the court was written by Chief Justice Roger Taney.

This decision was one of the triggers for the civil war and Lincoln in a beautiful eloquent speech has stated his opinion on the issue of slavery and the law.

Last Joint Debate, at Alton. Mr. Lincoln’s Reply. Lincoln, Abraham. 1897. Political Debates Between Lincoln and Douglas: Judge Douglas… says he “don’t care whether [slavery] is voted up or voted down” in the Territories. I do not care myself, in dealing with that expression, whether it is intended to be expressive of his individual sentiments on the subject, or only of the national policy he desires to have established. It is alike valuable for my purpose. Any man can say that who does not see anything wrong in slavery; but no man can logically say it who does see a wrong in it, because no man can logically say he don’t care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. He may say he don’t care whether an indifferent thing is voted up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right thing and a wrong thing. He contends that whatever community wants slaves has a right to have them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. But if it is a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong…. You may turn over everything in the Democratic policy from beginning to end, whether in the shape it takes on the statute book, in the shape it takes in the Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments, it everywhere carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in [slavery].

That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles—-right and wrong—-throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, “You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.” No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle…

I feel that in the world of 2007 the question of hoe much we as a nation can benefit from the misery and poorness of people from other nations is still a relevant questions. Globalization and wealth has turned some states to mere goods producers for the powerful west, their weakness and their need for income sometimes make them an easy prey for corporations that work them at minimum wages much lower then what needed to enable their release from the cycle of poverty and dependence. Are we as a nation thinking bottom lines or are we able to see people?