Chief Justice Taney and the Supreme Court



            Roger Brooke Taney of Maryland was Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1836 to 1864.  Although his court tried many cases over his twenty-eight year tenure, Chief Justice Taney will forever be remembered for a single case in 1857 for which he wrote the majority opinion: Dred Scott v. Sanford.  This divisive decision and the inflammatory words of his written opinion pushed America over the edge towards civil war.  It is significant that Chief Justice Taney was a Christian, specifically a Roman Catholic, the first ever to occupy that office.  Satan is using the same strategy today with the tidal wave of illegal Hispanic immigrants as with Taney over one hundred years ago pitting the federal government against the state governments.  



The Dred Scott Decision


            Dred Scott was an African slave born in Virginia around 1800.  He became the property of a U.S. Army doctor, Dr. John Emerson who travelled as directed by the Army.  When Dr. Emerson was transferred to Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory, both Free states, Scott went with him.  Scott ended up back in Missouri and after his owner died, he tried unsuccessfully to buy his freedom from his owner’s widow.   He then sued for his and his wife’s freedom in the Missouri courts because of his extended stays in Free states.  Denied his freedom there, he appealed.  With the help of others, including his childhood friend who was the son of his first slave owner, his case went all the way to the Supreme Court.  The court finally decided the case in 1857 with Chief Justice Taney writing the majority opinion.


In addition to agreeing with the Missouri courts in denying Scott his freedom, Taney’s opinion was an “historical exposition of the status of the negro”. 


“He held that the plaintiff in error, Dred Scott, was debarred from seeking a remedy in the U.S. circuit court for Missouri, on the ground that he was not a citizen of that state, and enunciated the general principle that negroes could not become citizens by the act of any state or of the United States, since, before the adoption of the constitution, the colonies had special laws for colored people, whether slave or free, and congress had not authorized their naturalization or enrolled them in the militia.  ‘They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.’… ” [1] (emphasis added)


Taney’s total lack of compassion for slaves as human beings was certainly evil enough in itself; however, what really alarmed those living in the North and other areas outside the South was Taney’s further belief and opinion of the Court that Congress did not have any legal basis to legislate against slavery.  As a result, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Missouri Compromise, and all other federal restrictions on slavery were therefore null-and-void.  According to Taney, slaves were “articles of merchandise” and their owners could take them into any state and keep them there, or take them out, as they pleased.  


The Supreme Court, going further than the law required, also ruled that state laws abolishing slavery in their state were unconstitutional and therefore invalid.  According to the Supreme Court, slaves were considered property – therefore, their owners could take them both in and out of the states where slavery had been abolished, stay there as long as they wanted, and leave when they wanted without any interference from the state. 


Even though many considered slavery an abomination, it was not until the Supreme Court overturned those laws passed by the Free states that the North felt threatened.   The message that the Supreme Court sent to the Free states was that slavery was allowed in their states if a slave owner from a slave owning state chose to bring his slaves into their state.  In other words, a free state could be forced to become a slave state.  


Up until Taney’s decision, those living outside the South were content not to become too deeply involved with the issue of slavery.  However, that all changed when their state’s rights were threatened.   Slavery was one issue; however, that the federal government could overturn a state’s right and force slavery in a free state, then that was altogether another issue.  Those who were once complacent were complacent no longer.


Chief Justice Taney’s written opinion hindered any possibility of a peaceful resolution to slavery.  To be more precise, it added fuel to the fire that ensured a civil war in America.  If any momentum was needed to thrust America into war, this decision and his written opinion provided it.  Those straddling the fence straddled it no longer.


The Civil War Era: Slavery and the Bible


The opinion written by Taney did not reflect the heart of Jesus Christ concerning slavery.  As a Catholic believer, Taney’s life and writings should have been a reflection of Christ’s life and teachings, in short, an ambassador for Jesus Christ.  Yet, Taney’s values and way of life were no different from an unbeliever’s who owned slaves.   


Ambassadors of Christ


As an ambassador for Jesus Christ, Taney’s opinions and way of life should have reflected the following Biblical beliefs concerning slavery:


·         According to Scripture, all Christians, regardless of nationality, race, sex or their circumstances in life, are to be considered as one in Christ Jesus.  As believers we are to view one another as an equal.


For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.  (Gal 3:27-28, KJV)


·         In the Book of Philemon, Paul informs Philemon that his runaway slave, Onesimus, is returning to him as a believer in Jesus Christ.  Therefore, Paul encourages Philemon to receive Onesimus not only as his slave, but also as a man, as an equal and as a brother in Jesus Christ (v.16).  In verse 21, Paul continues to encourage Philemon to do even more than he is asking in verse 16.  To do more would be for Philemon to set Onesimus free from slavery.


·         For those slaves who were unbelievers.  Scripture is clear – we are to love our neighbor as ourselves.   Taney as an ambassador for Jesus Christ should have loved his neighbor as himself. 




The roots of slavery in America originated from slave trading (“menstealing” in the Bible), which is condemned in the New Testament.  The Spanish Conquistadors not only brought the first African slaves to America, they also sold Native American Indians into slavery. 


But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;  Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;  (1Tim 1:8-10, KJV, emphasis added)


“Europeans began the conquest of America by seizing the Indians and selling them into slavery.  It is an oft-repeated boast that tyranny has never thrived on American soil, but it is seldom remembered that the first battles for freedom in this land were fought by the red natives.”[2]


“Menendez’s contract was a typical conquistador’s agreement…The title of adelantado of Florida granted him was made hereditary…He was also to take about five hundred negro slaves, half of whom were to be women.”[3]


God’s law was made to protect people from “menstealers” as well as from murderers, etc.  Yet according to 1Timothy 1:8, God’s law is only good if one uses it properly.  Obviously, the Spanish Conquistadors as well as many of America’s forefathers failed to use God’s law properly, even though they called on His Name.  Surprisingly, at one time many of America’s early lawmakers who considered themselves intelligent, civilized men, not only failed to make “secular laws” to protect people from menstealers and slavery, but they themselves purchased slaves from the slave traders.  Like the Spanish Conquistadors who claimed the land for the Pope and Spain, they had a law unto themselves.


Warning against False Teachers of the Law  


Scripture forewarns us about those who are ambitious to be lawmakers, professing to be teachers of the law, yet have neither the qualifications nor the spiritual understanding of God’s Law to make laws to properly protect mankind.  In other words, they discern God’s Law through a secular mindset, not that of a spiritual man, and therefore they do not use God’s law for the purposes He intended. 


Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.  But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully (1 Timothy 1:7-8, KJV)


It saddens me that Christian slave owners and Christian Lawmakers in America misused Scripture to justify furthering their own agendas.  They neither understood the Scriptures concerning slavery nor used Scripture correctly when making laws concerning slavery. 


Scripture (1 Timothy 1:9-10) reveals that the Law also applies to those whose beliefs are opposed to moral teaching and sound doctrine.  Even though the slave owners were protected by secular law – these particular secular laws actually became a stumbling block leading many into sin.  Secular laws that cause man to sin will never replace God’s laws.   In other words, those who misused Scripture, including Taney and others, and passed and supported unjust laws concerning slavery actually placed themselves under God’s Law for mishandling Scripture. 


Taney – an Ambassador for those who Supported Slavery


Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, a Catholic, believed that black people were unfit to associate with white people.  His beliefs and actions concerning slavery were no different from many other believers as well as the unbelievers who supported slavery.  By the world’s standards Taney, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, held a coveted position as an interpreter of the law.  As a Christian, we are to be an Ambassador for Jesus Christ, however, it is clear from the opinion that Taney wrote in the Dred Scott case, that he was nothing more than an ambassador for those who supported slavery. 


The opinion written by Taney did not reflect the heart of Jesus Christ. 


For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Rom 2:13, NIV)


            Again, it was the opinion of the Supreme Court, including at least one believer (Taney), whose decision regarding Dred Scott not only hindered any possibility of a peaceful resolution to slavery, but also provided the momentum that forced America into a the Civil War. 


            All Americans did not agree with the ruling or the opinion written by Taney.  Nonetheless, Taney was a product of his time.  The majority’s opinion was a reflection of five other judges as well as many other Catholics, Protestants, and a number of unbelievers who all felt that whether a black man was free or a slave, he was inferior to the white race.  According to the United States Supreme Court ruling, even if a black man was a free man he could not become a citizen of an individual State or of the United States of America.



The Spiritual Implications of Slavery


Satan worked through Chief Justice Taney’s written opinion in the Dred Scott decision to set the Federal Government against the State Governments and to bring about America’s first civil war.  Remembering that the religious leaders took counsel with the civil government to plot the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (Acts 4:25-28) and that Taney was a professing Christian, these facts are as significant as Taney’s role as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 


The Nicolaitan Spirit


The Nicolaitan Spirit operates through the Church and desires to “lord it over” others in order to be “victorious” over them (for a more detailed study on the Nicolaitan spirit over America – see the article on Nike).  We know from Revelation 2 verses 6 and 15 that the LORD did not approve of either the deeds or the doctrine of the Nicolaitans.  They were a heretical sect within the church that wanted Christians to choose their false doctrine and ways of the world over the truth of Scripture.  This was a doctrine that opposed the truth of Christianity. 


Heresy can manifest in a variety of ways within the Church.  Regardless of the tactics, a synchronistic form of worship will be the end result.  The tactics of the heretic can begin with nothing more than the deeds of the Nicolaitans as in Revelation 2:6 only to progress to the doctrine of the Nicolaitans as in Revelation 2:15 if not dealt with it. 

The spirit operating behind the Nicolaitans that is oppressing many of God’s people in the Church today wanting to be victorious over them is the same spirit that wanted to be victorious and lord it over the slaves and the Native American Indians when America was first settled.  I believe it was the spirit of the Nicolaitans that was operating behind those who misused Scripture to justify slavery and the evils committed against the Native American Indians. 


Once allowed in the Church, the goal of this spirit is to have victory over God’s people and this can be accomplished in a variety of ways.   This spirit will also manifest in a way that brings shame to the Church – as was the case with those Christians who misused Scripture to justify slavery.  And that in itself is another way this spirit lorded it over God’s people and His Church. 


Taney’s written opinion clearly conveys the ideology that one nationality or race can be “victorious” over another nationality or race by “lording over them”.   This is a manifestation of the spirit of the Nicolaitans that was allowed to operate in the Church of Pergamos.


Roman Catholicism and Slavery 


At the time, many people in America condoned slavery; however, not everyone was in a position of authority such as Chief Justice Taney, where their opinion made a profound impact one way or the other.  That Chief Justice Taney was Catholic is significant.  Why?  Because it was the Nicolaitan spirit operating through Catholicism that planted the seeds of slavery in America in 1565 and it was this same spirit operating behind Taney to protect those seeds in order that they could continue to take root and grow.


When the Spanish supplanted the French Huguenots in 1565 and established the Spanish colony in present day St. Augustine, Florida they brought with them the first black slaves [4]  as well as enslaving many of America’s native peoples.   The Spanish Conquistador, Menendez, did all this with the explicit mandate from both the pope and the Spanish King.


The State of Maryland - Dealing With Sins of the Forefathers


In 1864 the State of Maryland abolished slavery - the very day that Taney died.  In 2007, Maryland, along with a number of other slave holding states expressed their profound regret for the sins of their forefathers who sanctioned slavery. 


“Dealing With Sins of the Forefathers” is the headline of an article by Rosalind Helderman that ran in the July 23, 2007 edition of the Washington Post.  The article was written about how the State of Maryland now views one of their most prominent sons, Chief Justice Roger Taney.  Because of his profound influence that helped to further divide a nation and propel America into a civil war, many Marylanders hope to have statues of Taney removed to more inconspicuous places.  Others take even a dimmer view, as described in the Post article:


“This year alone [2007], Taney’s ruling has been blasted by scholars including the dean of Harvard Law School and Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer.  ‘It was a profoundly disturbing decision that literally ripped a nation in half,’ said Harvard law professor Charles J. Ogletree, … ‘It’s no surprise that some of the current thinking is that it is not only inappropriate to celebrate him but that any recognition of Taney as anything other than a blight on the federal judiciary is unacceptable.’” [5]


Other Spiritual Issues: President Lincoln’s Word Curse 


It may surprise some, however even though President Lincoln was against slavery, his personal writings support that he shared Taney’s belief that black people, would never share equality with white people – even when they were set free from slavery.  [see the section:  Church & State:  President Abraham Lincoln and the Sin of Presumption]  While it’s true that he was the President that ended slavery in America, nonetheless, his personal feelings concerning black people as individuals did not reflect those of a Christian.  The following are quotes from Lincoln’s own personal letters and show his insensitivity to black people, a side that most Americans don’t want to know about.


First, President Lincoln blamed the slaves for the Civil War.  On August 14, 1862, Lincoln addressed a delegation of free blacks that he had invited to the White House and in the address, Lincoln shared his thoughts and proposals on colonization, an idea embraced by many others at the time.  His thoughts not only revealed his total lack of sensitivity to all black people, but also blamed them for the civil war.  In a letter to Horace Greely nine days after this meeting his true reasoning behind the civil war was made perfectly clear. 


Address to a Delegation of Free Blacks: “… You and we are different races.  We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races.  Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence.  In a word we suffer on each side.  If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated… Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people.  But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race.  You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoy.  The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours.  Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you.   I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact with which we have to deal.  I cannot alter it if I would.  It is a fact, about which we all think and feel alike, I and you.  We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent.  I need not recount to you the effects upon white men, growing out of the institution of slavery.  I believe in its general evil effects on the white race.  See our present condition – the country engaged in war! – our white men cutting one another’s throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be truth.  But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not car for you one way or the other.  Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.  It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated….” [6] (emphasis added)


Lincoln’s comments that the black race would never share equality with white people was a word curse.  This curse is still being played out today with the ever present bigotry of some Americans and the necessity of the many civil rights laws we have on the books.


In the above address to the free Negroes, Lincoln not only suggested “colonization”, he even went as far as suggesting where this colony could be established.


Lincoln appealed to the free Negroes to make sacrifices for themselves and for mankind.  In the Chiriqui region of Central America, near the Isthmus of Panama, in the Republic of New Granada, were rich coal mines, and ports on two oceans.  Certain capitalists with investments in that region were willing to sponsor a venture.  If the President could induce some intelligent Negroes to go there and make a start, others could be persuaded to follow them.  The place might provide a new homeland for the Negro.  The President promised to see that the migrants were fairly treated.  In seeking to promote colonization Lincoln followed a policy deplored by abolitionist believers in Negro equality, but favored by liberal Southerners.” [7] (emphasis added)


It is clear from Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, dated August 22, 1862, that the Union – not slavery was his priority – therefore, he could go either way concerning slavery:


“… I would save the Union.  I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution.  The sooner the national authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be ‘the Union as it was.’  If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them.  If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them.  My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.  If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.  What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forebear because I do not believe it would to save the Union.  ... I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.” [8] (emphasis added)


The New Civil War in America


Just as Satan worked through Chief Justice Taney’s written opinion of the court to set the Federal Government against the State Government to bring about America’s first civil war, I believe that Satan is using the same strategy to bring about another civil war in America.  Illegal immigrants at the state and local levels are slowly but surely supplanting laws and culture, draining local services and education budgets and contributing significantly to increases in crime rates and gang activities.


Satan’s Strategy – Illegal Immigration 2007:


·         Satan’s strategy is to work through the government at the Federal level.

·         Satan will place the focus on State’s rights verses Federal rights to take the focus off the real issue which is the illegal immigrants.  

·         Satan needs the focus to shift to the government in order for the illegal immigrants to continue establishing their stronghold in America.

·         While the focus is shifting, the illegal immigrant will not only be able to continue to break the law – they will be protected by the very law that they are breaking.

·         Satan will work through the greed of Americans – it is those people who will support the illegal immigrants for their own gain.

·         Satan will work through our politicians who will support the illegal immigrants to further their own careers and agendas.

·         Finally, Satan will work through the religious establishment who don’t discern the spiritual aspects behind this whole situation. 


Historic Victory for the Illegal Immigrants – 2007


The following is from an article from the Washington Post written by Darryl Fears dated Friday, July 27, 2007 and illustrates the war going on between the federal government (a federal judge) and local governments (the city of Hazelton):


“A federal judge issued a permanent injunction yesterday against restrictive anti-illegal-immigration ordinances in Hazleton, Pa., a city described by its mayor as ‘the toughest place on illegal immigrants in America.’ … Civil liberties organizations sued on behalf of illegal and legal immigrant plaintiffs, including the Hazleton Hispanic Business Association, saying that the city infringed on the federal government’s sole authority to regulate immigration.  The groups hailed the ruling as a historic victory for the city’s Latino residents, as well as a warning to state and local governments that copied Hazleton’s ordinances and to opponents of illegal immigration, … In a statement, Hazleton Mayor Louis J. Barletta said:  ‘This fight is far from over.  I have said it many times before:  Hazleton is not going to back down.  We are discouraged to see a federal judge has decided – wrongly, we believe – that Hazleton and cities like it around the nation cannot enact legislation to protect their citizens, their services, and their budgets.’” [9]



A Righteous Government


Not until Jesus Christ returns will a righteous government be established.  Until then, the LORD has established a civil (secular) government to make and enforce moral laws to maintain order for both the believer and the unbeliever - otherwise the both the believer  and unbeliever would be subjected to living in a chaotic society.  For this reason we are to submit to and pray for our leaders.


Many Christians believe that it is up to Christian lawmakers to turn America around.  However, that is not Biblical. 


·         First, a civil government cannot do what only Jesus Christ can do and that is to establish a “Righteous Government”.


·         Second, a civil government is just that – it is a civil government – and in Biblical times was made up of unbelievers.  For example, Jesus was tried and sentenced to be crucified by Pilate, an unbeliever.  Paul stood before Festus and appealed to Caesar, both unbelievers.  The apostle James was killed by King Herod, a pagan.   


Electing Christian politicians does not guarantee that either moral or righteous laws will be made.  In view of the fact that the law is written on the heart of the unbeliever as well as the believer, the unbeliever is just as apt to pass moral laws as is the believer.  (Romans 2:12-15)  In the same way, the Christian is just as apt to support immoral laws as the unbeliever.  Still, it’s up to the individual as to how he or she will respond.


The Evolution of American Law:


It might surprise some Christians to discover that America’s laws have a distinctly pagan influence.  The following is a quote from Art in the United States Capitol prepared by the Architect of the Capitol which describes the 23 relief portraits in the House Chamber at the US Capitol.


“The 23 relief portraits in marble are of men noted in history for the part they played in the evolution of what has become American law.  They were placed over the gallery doors of the House of Representatives Chamber when it was remodeled 1949-50.... In chronological order the lawgivers are:” [10] (note: the third column of this chart was added to describe the office, occupation or historical position held by that person)



2067-2025 B.C.

(King of Babylon)



1571-1451 B.C.

(Hebrew Prophet & Lawmaker)



900 B.C.

(Spartan Legislator)



594 B.C.

(Athenian Statesman)



110-180 A.D.

(Roman Jurist)



200 A.D.

(Roman Jurist)



483-565 A.D.

(Byzantine Emperor)



500-547 A.D.

(Byzantine Jurist)



1135-1204 A.D.

(Jewish Philosopher)

Gregory IX


1147-1241 A.D


Innocent III


1161-1216 A.D.


De Montfort


1200-1265 A.D.

(English Statesman)

St. Louis


1214-1270 A.D.

(King of France)

Alphonso X


1221-1284 A.D.

(King of Leon and Castile)

Edward I


1239-1307 A.D.

(King of England)



1494-1566 A.D.

(Sultan of Turkey)



1583-1645 A.D.

(Dutch Statesman)



1619-1683 A.D

(French Statesman)



1699-1772 A.D.

(French Jurist)



1723-1780 A.D.

(English Jurist)



1726-1792 A.D.

(Drafter of Virginia Constitution)



1743-1826 A.D.

(Third President of the U.S.)



1769-1821 A.D.

(Emperor of France)


Not all of these men served the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  Needless to say, some were pagans who bowed down to other gods.  This is not to mention the two popes who, according to Catholic dogma, consider anyone who does not acknowledge the pope and the Roman Catholic Church as the only true church are heretics (i.e., not true Christians).


Obviously our American lawmakers did not choose them because of their righteousness.  Then again, a civil government does not equate to a righteous government.  They were chosen because they made moral laws based on their sense of right and wrong - according to the laws that were written on their hearts.  Even Hammurabi, the pagan king of Babylon enforced moral laws.


America’s Christian Roots 


Yes, America has Christian roots; however, those Christian roots were laid down by the French Huguenots in 1565 near present day Jacksonville, Florida and should not be confused with America’s civil government.  (see section on America’s Spiritual Roots and America’s Secular Founding Fathers)  Again, the point I wanted to make is that a Christian politician does not make any more of a difference in a civil government that that of an unbeliever.  Truly, not until Jesus Christ returns will a righteous government be established.



© Gwen Thomas, September 2007





Architect of the Capitol. Art in the United States Capitol. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1976


Bolton, Herbert E. The Spanish Borderlands: A Chronicle of Old Florida and the Southwest. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1921


Fears, Darryl. “Judge Blocks City’s Ordinances Against Illegal Immigration”, The Washington Post. 27 July 2007


Helderman, Rosalind S. “Dealing With Sins of the Forefathers”, The Washington Post. 23 July 2007


Parish, Peter J. ed. Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Letters. London: Orion Publishing Group, 1993


Thomas, Benjamin P. Abraham Lincoln: A Biography. NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1952


Wilson, James Grant and Fiske, John. Cyclopaedia of American Biography. New York: D. Appleton, 1894


Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society.  Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved. 


The “NIV” and “New International Version” trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by International Bible Society.  Use of either trademark requires the permission of International Bible Society.





[1]  James Grant Wilson and John Fiske, Cyclopaedia of American Biography, p.30


[2]  Herbert E. Bolton, The Spanish Borderlands, p.12


[3]  Herbert E. Bolton, The Spanish Borderlands, p. 141


[4]  Herbert E. Bolton, The Spanish Borderlands, p.140-141


[5]  Rosalind S. Helderman, “Dealing With Sins of the Forefathers”, The Washington Post, 23 July 2007, Sec B, p.1


[6]  Peter J. Parish, Abraham Lincoln Speeches and Letters, p.213-214


[7]  Benjamin P. Thomas, Abraham Lincoln: A Biography, p.362


[8]  Peter J. Parish, Abraham Lincoln Speeches and Letters, p.214-215


[9]  Darryl Fears, “Judge Blocks City’s Ordinances Against Illegal Immigration”, The Washington Post, 27 July 2007, Sec A, p.02


[10] Architect of the Capitol, Art in the United States Capitol, p.282