Authority Maintenance Quotes
The State of Wisconsin was very much against slavery. Opposing the Fugitive Slave Act, the state passed a Personal Freedom Act under which Wisconsin officials refused to return fugitive slaves as required by the Fugitive Slave Act. The Wisconsin Courts upheld the Wisconsin law citing, among other things, States’ Rights. The Taney Supreme Court which was strongly pro-slavery (a majority of the justices were Southern slaveowners) then overturned Wisconsin’s law. Taney’s opinion said that if there was to be Federal Supremacy in laws, there must be Federal Supremacy in enforcement of laws and in the decisions of the courts. The quotation is noteworthy for three reasons. First, it illustrates a certain hypocrisy that has existed over the issue of States’ Rights. The South, which is thought of as the bastion of the principle of States Rights were outraged that a Federal law that favored their slavery position would be “nullified” by a Northern state. So they claimed and fought for Federal supremacy and preemption at that time. However, when the Federal Government later passed laws controlling slavery and reconstruction, the South claimed that States’ Rights should prevail. The Northerners, who were the losers in this case, then later turned around and used the precedent to prevent the South from nullifying anti slavery and civil rights legislation. So it also illustrates that court decisions that are favored or opposed in one situation can cut the other way with a different set of facts. While there are those that believe the law should be above political considerations, there are others who use this quotation and its aftermath to illustrate that much of law is just a question of “whose ox is gored.”
