TAPPAN. 



643 



land Louse of delegates, and in 1816 of the State Sen- 

 ate. His reputation as a lawyer steadily increased, es- 

 pecially alter his removal to Baltimore in 18123. He 

 Bad originally been a Federalist, and was personally 

 opposed^ to slavery, but in the new alignment of par- 

 ties, which took place during John Quincy Adams' 

 administration, Taney took the Democratic side. He 

 was appointed attorney-general of Maryland in 1827, 

 and four years later Gen. Jackson called him to be 

 U. S. attorney -general, and found him an able as- 

 sistant and trusty adviser. When the President, after 

 vetoing in 1X32 the bill for renewal of the charter of 

 the U. S. Bank, decided further that the bank and 

 its branches should no longer be covernment deposi- 

 tories, Duane. then secretary of the treasury, with 

 a well-grounded apprehension of the result of in- 

 trusting the funds to State banks of various and un- 

 certain degrees of financial soundness, refused to exe- 

 cute the order. He was, therefore, removed, and 

 Taney, who had advised the scheme, was appointed 

 in his place. The nomination was held in suspense 

 by the Senate for nine months, and finally rejected, 

 though Taney had meantime been acting as head of 

 the department. Jackson's regard for him was shown 

 again in 1835, when he nominated Taney first as as- 

 sociate and afterwards on the death of John Mar- 

 shall as chief-justice of the Supreme Court. There 

 was still opposition in the Senate, but within three 

 months Taney was confirmed. He had now attained 

 the height to which his ambition had early aspired. 

 Tlie feelings of awe and veneration which, during the 

 long career of Cliief-Justice Marshall, had gathered 

 around the Supreme bench, were preserved during 

 several years of Tancy's term. 



Two great cases bearing strong impression of his 

 mental qualities illustrate his powers and balance of 

 mind at its period of most full development and in its 

 days of declining strength. Both of these casi > in- 

 volved fundamental questions relating to the structure 

 of our system, the one as it regards its political and the 

 other its civil suspects. One of these cases arose out 

 of what is known as the Dorr rebellion, which was an 

 attempt to change the constitution of Rhode Island by 

 jMjpnlar authority without the assistance and concur- 

 rence of the then existing government of that State. 

 The othr case was that of the status of a slave who 

 had been carried from a Slate in which slavery existed 

 to a place where that institution did not exist and 

 returned to the first-mentioned State, where the free- 

 dom of the slave was claimed on the ground that he 

 had been taken by his master to a State in which 

 slavery had no existence. In the first case the de- 

 cision of the court rendered by the chief-justice was 

 strictly confined to the necessities of the questions 

 presented, while in the other the opinion of the 

 chief-justice went beyond those necessities to define 

 a grave constitutional question that involved the 

 balance of powers between the national government 

 and the States. 



That the attempt to change the constitution of 

 Rhode Island, independent of any concurrent action 

 of the existing government, was revolutionary in its 

 nature appears quite clear. That the government, 

 winvht by such means to be established was not in fact 

 established so as to be capable of being regarded as a 

 tit facto government appears by the statement of the 

 "tise, and is a recognized historical fact. The case in 

 the opinion of the chief-justice turned upon the au- 

 thority of the President upon the application of the 

 government of a State to use the military power of 

 the United States to quell insurrection against such 

 State authority, in such a case the court being con- 

 cluded by the action of the President on such an ap- 

 plication. As in cases of that character it may happen 

 that the actual existence of the government making 

 Mich n demand of the President may bo disputed as 

 between two conflicting claimants to such authority the 

 Conclusion of the court would appear to sustain the 



idea that the determination of such a question belongs 

 to the President, and his decision is binding upon the 

 court. No higher assertion of national authority can 

 be made than that which confers upon the national 

 government authority to determine the controversies 

 Between ^a State and its citizens as to the rightful exer- 

 cise of State authority, and where such authority is 

 accorded to the national executive so as to bind the 

 judicial power, the assertion of national prerogative 

 against State authority is as vigorous as the most ardent 

 advocate of the national idea could demand. 



But the greater the manifest regard of the American 

 people for its highest tribunal the more anxious were 

 the pro-slavery politicians to obtain the support of this 

 department of the government for the movement fur the 

 extension of slavery. The case of DRED SCOTT (q. v.) 

 furnished the opportunity, and Taney, with the ma- 

 jority of the court, yielded to the pressure. The de- 

 cision which refused Scott, as a negro, any standing in 

 a U. S. court, and the offensive dictum that, in the 

 opinion of the framcrs of the U. S. Constitution, ne- 

 groes had "no rights which white men were bound 

 to respect," was published March 6, 1857, immedi- 

 ately after Pres. Buchanan's inauguration. It was 

 evidently intended by its authors to extinguish all op- 

 position to the progress of slavery in the national do- 

 main ; its only effect was to rouse in the North a 

 fiercer and more determined antagonism to the dom- 

 ination of the slave power. During the ensuing years 

 of political strife, secession, and civil war Taney re- 

 mained a reluctant witness to the steady progress of a 

 political revolution, which finally overthrew slavery 

 even in Maryland. He faithfully performed all the 

 duties of his office as he understood them, but he be- 

 wailed the loss of much of its former glory. His views 

 even brought him into conflict with the military au- 

 thorities, and he was compelled to recognize the truth 

 of the proverb, "Jitter urnxi letjm gilfiit." He died nt 

 Baltimore, Oct. 12, 1804. His life ended before the 

 conclusion of the great struggle that restored the 

 strength of the national authority that had been 

 weakened by the decision in the Dred Scott case, and 

 the country truly mourned the death of an eminent 

 judge and worthy man who was equal to the de- 

 mands of his great office in the height of his mental 

 powers, but in the end could not resist the course 

 of nature and of revolution. See his Life by S. Tyler 

 (1872). 



TAPPAN, ARTHITR (I786-18G5), merchant and 

 Abolitionist, was born at Northampton, Mass., May 

 22, 178f>. His father, Benjamin Tappan, had been 

 noted for his patriotism during the Involution. Ar- 

 thur, after receiving a common-school education, en- 

 tered on a mercantile career at Boston. With his 

 brother, Lewis, he engaged in importing dry-goods, 

 and resided for a time at Portland, and afterwards at 

 Montreal. The war of J8I2 compelled him to leave 

 Canada, and he settled in New York. Here his ac- 

 tivity and liberality found wide scope in founding and 

 contributing to religious and benevolent enterprises. 

 The American Tract Society, the American Bible So- 

 ciety, and various colleges and seminaries were fostered 

 by his generosity. In 1828 the Tappan brothers 

 founded the New York Journal of Commerce, with 

 Horace Bushnell as one of its editors. Arthur was 

 roused to activity in the Abolitionist cause by the per- 

 secution of William Lloyd Garrison, whom he rescued 

 from a Baltimore jail by paying his fine. In 1833 he 

 called at his own house a meeting for the formation 

 <if an anti-slavery society, and in the same year was 

 made the first president of the American Anti-slavery 

 Society. When threatened with the loss of Southern 

 trade the brothers replied that their goods but not 

 their_ principles were for sale. In 1834 Arthur's 

 dwelling-house was attacked and pillaged bv a mob, 

 and the brothers' store had to be defended by arms. 

 Yet they continued to give liberally to the Abolition 

 cause until in 1835 their warehouse was burned. By 



