Maryland Removes Statue Of Roger B. Taney In Midnight Operation: Will Other Supreme Court Justice Monuments Follow?

Roger_B._Taney_statue,_Mount_Vernon_Place,_Baltimore,_MDWithout much notice or debate, Maryland officials ordered the removal of the statue of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney due to his authorship of the Dredd Scott decision.  At midnight, workers quietly dismantled the statue in response to the violence in Charlottesville.  Taney’s statue stood for 145 years on the Maryland State House and his removal follows calls for the removal of statues not simply of confederate figures but founders like George Washington and others associated with either slavery or segregation.  I have cautioned against the wholesale removal of historical images and monuments and names at universities.  The flaws and failures of historical figures are often as more important than their triumphs.  The Taney removal reflects a widening array of figures who are now subject  to call for removal — beyond confederate statuary.   It is not clear what Maryland will do with the US Coast Guard Cutter Taney which currently is part of the Baltimore Maritime Museum.  It is last surviving active ship from the Pearl Harbor attack of December 7, 1941.  I have spent nights on the Taney with the Cub Scouts. While this is not on state lands, it is not clear if there will also be a demand that the ship be removed given its namesake or how far this movement to remove historical references will do.

Taney’s decision in Dredd Scott remains as one of the lowest moments for the Supreme Court and for the country.  Taney’s infamous words in the opinion capture the chilling racism and inhumanity of the time. Taney stated that the rights of African Americans had to be based on the original intent of the Constitution but that the framers believed that blacks “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. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it.”

440px-Roger_B._Taney_-_Brady-HandyTaney was wrong on the law and on the wrong side of history.  He was a Jacksonian Democrat from Maryland who freed the slaves inherited from his father and gave pensions to some of them.  He served as Attorney General and Secretary of the Treasury.  When the Civil War began, he stayed with the North and continued to serve on the Supreme Court.   He also joined in Justice Joseph Story’s magnificent decision in favor of the slaves who took over the Spanish schooner Amistad.  Yet he also referred to “Northern aggression” in the war and appeared to remain a supporter of slavery. Ironically, he died on the day that Maryland abolished slavery near the end of the war.

Taney had a narrow view of federal authority and judicial power.  That was reflected in one of his more famous decisions in Luther v. Borden where he articulated a dividing line between between political questions and justiciable ones: “the powers given to the courts by the Constitution are judicial powers and extend to those subject, only, which are judicial in character, and not to those which are political.”

Taney’s decision in Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861), remains one of the most important decisions in history limiting the power of presidents and defending the the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under the Constitution’s Suspension Clause. In the Dredd Scott decision, Taney ruled with nine other justices that Congress had no authority to restrict the spread of slavery into federal territories and that the 1820 Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.

Taney’s decision in Dredd Scott warrants condemnation.  However, the dismantling of the Taney statue indicates that the scope of the current movement for statuary removals is broader than just confederate statues.  We have seen demands for the removal of Columbus statues and other historical figures.  As I mentioned recently, what concerns me is the lack of any public debate over calls for the removal of memorials and others (like Justices).  There are a host of justices who wrote terrible decisions that denied rights to others.  For example, Tenth Circuit Courthouse is named after Byron White who authored the opinion in Bowers v. Hardwich, upholding laws criminalizing homosexuality.   Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in Buck v. Bell in favor of forced sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities. He said “society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind” and ended the opinion by declaring that “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

It is not clear if other names and statues like Holmes’ or Whites or others will also be removed or what standard will be applied in such cases.  From abortion to gay rights to internments, there are an array of opinions that are shock our conscience.  Yet, eight other justices signed on to Buck and seven signed off on Scott.  Likewise, as discussed in my recent column, there is a movement to strip away Woodrow Wilson’s name from Princeton University due to his support for segregation.    There are good faith objections to some of these figures but there is currently no clear standard for which statues are to be removed. Indeed, the majority of polled citizens do not favor even the removal of the confederate statues.  This would seem an ideal time for hearings in Congress and other forums to discuss how we should treat historical figures.  One alternative to dismantling statues is to add additional statuary or, as will be done at the Jefferson memorial, add information on slave holding.

What do you think?

241 thoughts on “Maryland Removes Statue Of Roger B. Taney In Midnight Operation: Will Other Supreme Court Justice Monuments Follow?”

  1. Why stop at removing Taney’s statue? Why not go to all the libraries in the land and remove all the books that mention all of the Supreme Court Justices you just mentioned. Statue dismantlement is in and soon it may be book burning. It sounds like the Nazi’s have taken over the left.

    Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich
    Der Reichstag hat das folgende Gesetz beschlossen, das mit Zustimmung des Reichsrats hiermit verkündet wird, nachdem festgestellt ist, daß die Erfordernisse verfassungsändernder Gesetzgebung erfüllt sind: The Reichstag has enacted the following law, which is hereby proclaimed with the assent of the Reichsrat, it having been established that the requirements for a constitutional amendment have been fulfilled:
    Artikel 1 Article 1
    Reichsgesetze können außer in dem in der Reichsverfassung vorgesehenen Verfahren auch durch die Reichsregierung beschlossen werden. Dies gilt auch für die in den Artikeln 85 Abs. 2 und 87 der Reichsverfassung bezeichneten Gesetze. In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.[11]
    Artikel 2


  2. Harlan was the sole dissenter in Plessy, arguing vociferously that “separate but equal” imposed a badge of servitude on blacks. He was also the lone dissenter in the “Civil Rights Cases,” wherein the Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, claiming it was beyond the powers of the Constitution. Harlan argued that the Court was using semantics to undermine the newly enacted Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th and 15th). On one hand, Harlan opposed the 13th Amendment as a violation of state sovereignty, but once it was passed, he was the only Supreme Court Justice who strongly supported equal rights under the law for black Americans. Like Roger Taney, he was far more complex than the simplistic stereotypes propagated by the left. He was born into a wealthy slave owning family in Kentucky, but supported the Union. He had a mulatto half-brother who was born of a slave, but raised and educated beside him and his white brothers and who became enormously wealthy as an adult. Thus he did not believe the views of black intellectual inferiority so common among his peers. But he did respect state sovereignty and the rule of law. All in all, he was an interesting character, well beyond his time in many ways.

  3. It’s illogical to believe that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Russia already emancipated its serfs years before the US abolished slavery, without firing a single shot, after Western Europe had shamed Russian royalty and establishment into coming around to more modern civilization.

    In the same way, a war was never needed to abolish slavery in the US. The Civil War was a power struggle between the North and South, the issue of slavery injected to demonize Southerners and sway Northern public opinion for the benefit of elites and establishment who needed war to maintain their wealth and expand power over the South.

    Sure, the Civil War abolished slavery, making it reality for Blacks today to enjoy their God-given right of freedom, but it didn’t happen without hundreds of thousands of white soldiers sacrificing their own lives for the benefit of Blacks.

    The Netherlands is replete with statues and monuments everywhere, paying tribute and appreciation to WWII Allied soldiers who paid the ultimate price, just so the Dutch can be free today.

    Where are the Black’s statues and monuments paying tribute and appreciation to white soldiers who paid the ultimate price for abolishment? I haven’t seen a single one (though, surely, there must be some), but I have seen militants like Black Lives Matter who not only do not appreciate the ultimate sacrific whites made for their freedom, but they also are hell-bent on exterminating white people.

    In the larger scheme of things today, the issue of white-on-minority racism is less about restitution or deleting history, more about demonizing white people for no other purpose but to sway minority public opinion in favor of justifying violence against whites, with the eventual objective of subordinating all white power and wealth to minority power and wealth.

    Liberals are directing this orchestra.

    1. You might want to read S. Carolina’s articles of secession before claiming that slavery wasn’t the reason for the Civil War. It started at Fort Sumter, S. Carolina.

      1. It has never been established which side actually fired the first shot in that skirmish, but assuming it was someone on the South Carolina side, does it necessarily follow that SC spoke for every other southern nation-state; that their interests and objectives were identical?

        1. We need to read “Lincoln Unmasked” and “The Real Lincoln” to discover that SC was cynically manipulated by Lincoln to fire the first shot when Lincoln attempted to re-supply a fort which was a SC fort–NOT a federal fort. Lincoln knew exactly what he was doing. He was hellbent to justify federal invasion of the South and avoided his firing the first shot. He was a me-first, political manipulator of the first order. I cringe every time the Republicans invoke his name. They obviously do not know the politically incorrect history of the war.

          1. I ordered a copy of the first book from Amazon. If I like it, I’ll get the 2d one. Thanks for the tip!

        2. TIN – according to Mary Chesnut, S. Carolina fired all the shots at Fort Sumpter. They were foreign occupiers of their territory.

      2. Natacha – for the state it was one of the reasons. However, SC was not the only state in the war. The northern states joined when they realized they would be invaded to attack other states. That is how Virginia and Lee got involved.

    2. Vinegart, one fine point. It appears that on the day the unconstitutional Emancipation Proclamation was issued, the Naturalization Act of 1802 was in full force and effect requiring citizens to be “…free white person(s)…” and causing the legal status of slaves to be revised from “property” to “illegal alien,” which requires deportation. Lincoln’s successors, rather than deport the illegal aliens, forced states to ratify the illegitimate, unconstitutional and illegal “Reconstruction Amendments” with a “gun to their heads” and under the duress of post-war military occupation. Presuming that no perpetrator, accomplice or beneficiary shall profit or gain from the initial crime, there are many multiple descendants awaiting deportation as a result of the inescapable conclusion of this cold case.

  4. Maryland Removes Statue Of Roger B. Taney In Midnight Operation: Will Other Supreme Court Justice Monuments Follow?

    How disgraceful. Allowing a mob of politically correct ahistorical crayon wielding know-nothings to erase this nations history because it may be unpleasant.

    There is not one person alive in the United States today that was ever forced into slavery via official government policy.

    There is also not one person alive in the United States today that has ever owned slaves via official government policy.

    Is/was slavery wrong?


    Should we commit national suicide in 2017 in order to placate a mob of ahistorical know-nothings?

    Absolutely not.

  5. I don’t have much to add other than to voice my agreement. Bowing before these idiotic children is going to be very, very bad for this country.

  6. It wasn’t “Maryland officials” who made the decision to remove the Taney statue. It was a unilateral decision by one person: Maryland governor Larry Hogan. Hogan is a white Republican, elected by a largely Democratic constituency who were fed up with Maryland’s decades of mismanagement, high taxes and excessive regulations under Democratic rule. But Hogan is nervous about the upcoming challenge by NAACP president Ben Jealous who is running for Maryland governor on the Democratic ticket, appealing to MD’s large black and liberal population. So rather than sticking to principle, Hogan caved to the PC crowd. Some of his prior supporters have vowed to sit this one out. Personally, I won’t cast a vote for Hogan again, as he has displayed a lack of character and backbone. If Ben Jealous wins, I’ll move across the river to Virginia.

    1. Hogan, like most Republican pols, is a chronically confused careerist. They’re easily rolled because they haven’t much between their ears other than (perhaps) competitiveness or ambition.

  7. Officials in Maryland “copycat” ISIS as they “fundamentally transform” America as part of their liberal “propaganda campaign.”

    “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

    – Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

    National Geographic –

    “Islamist militants in Iraq and Syria continue their war on the region’s cultural heritage, attacking archaeological sites with bulldozers and explosives.

    The so-called Islamic State (ISIS) released a video that shocked the world last month by showing the fiery destruction of the Temple of Baalshamin, one of the best-preserved ruins at the Syrian site of Palmyra. Last weekend, explosions were reported at another Palmyra temple, dedicated to the ancient god Baal; a United Nation agency says satellite images show that larger temple has largely been destroyed.

    The destruction is part of a propaganda campaign that includes videos of militants rampaging through Iraq’s Mosul Museum with pickaxes and sledgehammers, and the dynamiting of centuries-old Christian and Muslim shrines.”

  8. What would be the outcome if every memorial/statue in America were torn down? How about re-naming every single building, school, street, etc that someone finds offensive? What would change? Would peace and racial harmony prevail throughout the land then?

    1. That’s a simple question. You erase the points in history where we draw our collective idea as a nation, and insert your own, for your own ends. Racial issues are not the governing force behind this, it is just an effective strategy against the feeble-minded. Lots of feeble minds, apparently.

      1. Agree that racial issues are not the governing force behind this. Just a convenient reason for groups to foment civil unrest.

        1. You have to erase personal identity, or at worst, convince people they are basically terrible people as to the result of their genetics in order to create a new “better” model for them to follow. Now’s the time to push back. Take your own stand. Most of us know what the basics of right and wrong are. Don’t allow the shallow arguments of frankly and natacha to undermine your convictions. They make a lot of noise while not knowing what they truly represent.

  9. Maybe we should put statues of Grant, Sherman, Burnside and other Union Generals in the center of towns of the south to remind them of who won the war. After all, its heritage not hate. Maybe we should put up a monument to the 5 Supreme Court justices that told us who won the 2000 election as a testament to democracy of state rights. Maybe we can put up statues of US soldiers killing women and children on Indian reservations. Maybe we can have statues of mass murders to honour their commitment to population control. I say this in jest, but think about how you would feel if you had to look at a statue or monument that history has shown to be on the wrong side. PC gone amuck maybe, but it should be discussed with who it may offend or not. Outrage coming in 3….2…..1….

    1. While you are at it, tear down the White House. It was, purportedly, built using slave labor. The horror! The humanity! Too bad Hussein and his wife, Moochie, and here freeloading mother, Weezie, aren’t still in their to enjoy the demolition as the rafters fall on their heads. It’s all about timing, I suppose.

  10. Much like John Adams famous quote, “facts are stubborn things,” as is history. Removing statues will not change it.

      1. Confederates were insurrectionists, not traitors. That aside, Taney was a Unionist.

    1. Your question is spot on, as evidenced by the eerie admonition of Heidrick Heine, in his 1820 or 1821 play, Almansor, admonished. . .where they burn books, they will, ultimately, burn people. You think that these animals–trashing and demolishing these offensive statues, because they are representative of dead people who were guilty of their white privilege, among other things–only wish to destroy inanimate objects, such as statues? Right.

  11. You shouldn’t try to change or destroy history..if you don’t learn and preserve history you will be destined to make these mistakes AGAIN. Distroyers and haters make me sick. Alt-right/alt-left just go away!!

      1. About my opinion of your blather about ALEC: it’s another meme promoted by MadCow with no reality.

      2. Speaking of rewriting history books…

        What the —- is unconstitutional “Affirmative Action Privilege” and welfare, social services, food stamps, forced busing, quotas, WIC, HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, Medicare, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, ObamaWelfareHealthcare, etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum.

        And what did the Naturalization Act of 1802 say – “…free white person…” – the day “Crazy Abe” issued his despotic edict, AKA the Emancipation Proclamation, illegally confiscating legal private property and changing the legal status of slaves from “property” to “illegal alien” requiring immediate deportation? And if no person or related individual may benefit from the commission of a crime, there are many descendants of freed slaves who are awaiting disposition of a cold case.

        Naturalization Act of 1802

        “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…”

        Yep, It said that until “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s crazy successors held a gun to America’s head and forced the antithetical, unconstitutional and improperly ratified “Reconstruction Amendments” on free people under the duress of post-war military occupation.

        Lincoln’s statue must be razed to the ground for this:

        “If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” “…he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”

        And how about that traitor who proposed the treasonous act of rewriting history by “fundamentally transforming” America?

    1. They want to delete history so they can’t be accused of repeating it.

      That would be a perfectly logical explanation with the exception that those that would be doing the accusing won’t ever forget the history, and those that would be accused have constituents that are already ignorant and apathetic of that history.


    “It’s time for our leaders in the state to go even further. We’ve got to really admit that when it comes to the issue of hatred and tension, ethnic tension, there is nothing different about our state—you know, there’s nothing here that either exists or doesn’t exist that’s not in the rest of the country. We have all of the problems. We are a microcosm of this country. But what makes us different, especially among states south of the Mason-Dixon, is that we’ve shown our ability to come together courageously on issues of civil rights. We had one year here, Amy, where we abolished the death penalty, passed marriage equality, passed the DREAM Act and expanded voting rights, even as our neighbors were suppressing them. And it’s time for us to have a governor to really lead our state in doing that again. And that’s where I think, you know, Hogan could do more. I was glad that he spoke out, but he is not showing real leadership to pull us together to have the tough conversations, to really challenge people—many of them in his own party—to evolve, to move on, to open their hearts, to follow the examples of George Wallace, of Robert Byrd, of so many other people, once filled with hate, who learned how to love. It’s time for us in Maryland to really come together.”

    1. 1. Has Ben Jealous ever had more than 100 people working under him?

      2. Has Ben Jealous ever been employed in a position that had operational measures of competence? Or, at any rate, operational measures it would admit to?

      3. Do you really think the VC firm that hired Ben Jealous were tapping his manifest business skills or quant skills?

        1. Asking questions about what sort of work someone is prepared to do is experienced as static in Elaine’s head. Because senile.

          1. I hope so, Ken.

            The Democratic Party in Maryland doesn’t have such a thin bench that they have to hand responsible positions to vain tyros, and no one who had a lick of sense would suggest they do so. Jealous is a man fit to run a worthless NGO. Nothing more.

            1. Whatever you say, oh desperate one — who apparently thinks that she knows all.

        1. Hasn’t that been the point of massive, “discordant” invasion/immigration for the past 50 years; to put the elections out of reach of Americans?

          “…whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

          Alexander Hamilton –

          “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

          America is being “fundamentally transformed” out of existence…and that’s OK, right?

          Sure hope this doesn’t happen:

          “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

          – Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

          It could get ugly.

        2. The Governor’s chair in Maryland is not a bauble, and he’ll have to get past Democratic pols who’ve either navigated the legislature or run local governments in Maryland.

      1. Ben Carson would fail two of those three tests. The one area of his competence is totally unrelated to the position he finds himself in today. Same with Betsy DeVos (whom I’ve met and liked well enough as a person).

        1. The CEO’s of many large corporations paid millions had no experience in the area of the company’s products yet they were hired for their skills in management and other things. I don’t know why you think Ben Carson, an African American, only can have one area of expertise.

            1. Yes, it is beyond your control. But, Carson can think in more than one direction and has attributes that can make him a good leader. We need visionaries and not just people that sign checks.

        2. I do not know why Dr. Carson took the position. It is not up his alley.

          DeVos was selected because she’s familiar with some of the issues the department deals with.

          Both are bad departments and should be eliminated at the earliest feasible time.

          1. We agreed on something regarding Dr. Carson, the stars must be coming into alignment. Regarding Betsy DeVos, an incredibly nice woman from my experience. Having watched her Senate confirmation hearings. The issues she’s familiar with must be other than the ones she was asked about.

  13. I don’t want no statues of Mary and Jesus. Or Mahammed Ali. Or Ben Gazi. Or George Washingon DC. What does DC stand for anyway? Dumb Caucasian?

    1. Geez, the Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers.

      But then they had ambition, integrity, capacity, perspective, intelligence, perseverance, rationality, motivation…oh, and no affirmative action privilege, welfare, quotas, social services, food stamps, forced busing, “Fair Housing” law, “Non-Discrimination” law, WIC, HUD, HHS, HAMP, HARP, Obamacare, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, ya know, to fall back on.

      1. I dont know about that…..they got pretty whiney in the Desert. And what about those golden idols? If it wasn’t for Moses, a large percentage of them would have probably slunk back to their slave masters rather than face the unknown.

        1. But, Tin, they got over it without reparations, wefare or food stamps and have contributed greatly to the world.

  14. Statues stand for hundreds of years, perhaps, but what the person depicted in the statute stands for is subject to enlightened reasoning with the passage of time and changes in social conditions. JT is correct that Taney wrote other opinions, and others on the bench concurred in the Scott decision, but this is the decision for which he is most known. No man who wrote the sorts of things Taney did should have a statue displayed in a public place or university. Taney’s reasoning was a product of its time, rather than a product of the words of the Constitution, which reads that “all men are created equal and endowed with their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” No exception for those who aren’t white, Christian, straight or of European descent. That Taney found an exception denies him a statue in public places where people are forced to look at him and the implied acceptance of what he stands for evidenced by displaying his image in a public area. History has recorded his words, so no one is taking away history. They are taking away the glory conferred by maintaining a public monument, and that is the right thing to do when what the person stands for is antithetical to American values. Put the statue someplace else.

    How should historical figures be treated, you ask? I think that schools do a good job of placing historical facts and persons into context and we don’t need Congress or State Legislatures to decide for us whether or not someone like Taney is worthy of a public statue. There can be little doubt that many of the statues of controversial people were erected for political reasons: there are those who still agree with Taney’s outrageously racist statements–hell, many of them post right here, such as the bottle blonde who referred to black children as pickaninnies, just yesterday. Any public discourse about this would only bring about more of what you saw in Charlottesville. There’s little doubt that Confederate statues were erected as an objection to black people obtaining their civil rights and as a statement of white supremacy. I also think that many people never really thought much about people like Robert E. Lee before now. He was just accepted as a positive military commander, rather than the leader of a traitorous militia fighting to keep people in bondage, and whose side lost the war but not until many thousands of people died. Did Germany ever erect any statues to Hitler, its most famous citizen, and who also was very successful politically? Why not? Germany has even demolished every house he ever lived in. If you can answer the question as to why Germany doesn’t adulate Hitler then you can answer the question about what should be done with controversial Americans who have public statues that some people object to. What did the person stand for? Washington and Jefferson were nation-builders, but incidentally owned slaves. They stood for freedom from tyranny. Taney couldn’t even perceive that blacks were humans, endowed with any rights. That’s what he stands for.

      1. Natacha is what you get when you teach US Civics as an elective in middle school using True/False questions.

        1. Question, Olly: have you ever read the Dred Scott decision? I have. Why don’t you read it, and then comment about my alleged lack of civics education. All you seem capable of doing is ad hominem attacks without any substantive or factual disagreement with what I say. If you think Taney is someone who deserves public adulation, then explain why, instead of attacking me and my education.

          1. All you seem capable of doing is ad hominem attacks without any substantive or factual disagreement with what I say.

            My post was substantive; and your response to it proves the point. This nation has a history that is far more intricate than the events that have led us to today. Civics literacy isn’t proven by regurgitating facts. The facts of Who, What, When, Where and How are only meaningful if they are infused with the Why. The self-evident truths in the DoI are only so if one understands and accepts the reasoning of why those that signed it, believed it.

            Taney’s reasoning was a product of its time, rather than a product of the words of the Constitution, which reads that “all men are created equal and endowed with their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” No exception for those who aren’t white, Christian, straight or of European descent.

            No one that actually studied the Declaration of Independence would misquote those words as being from the constitution. And if you studied the why of those words being written and signed during a time when equality, natural rights and the government were actually not reflective of the times, then you’d understand those words were a vision statement for this new nation.


            1. Yes, those words were a vision statement for a new nation, so why couldn’t Taney see that people of African origin were human beings, instead of property? Explain that to me.

              1. Some did see it. But, because slavery was a legal fact of life, others thought it probably applied to blacks in a general, theoretical sense, but not in a practical sense.

                Kind of like the way some people today see the law on Free Speech. Yeah, sooo maybe everybody has the right to have a rally, even Conservatives, Ann Coulter, Milo, White Supremacists and neo-Nazis BUT— there’s nothing wrong with us putting on masks and picking up baseball bats to go shut down their rallies because we think it’s hate speech!

                Kind of like – – – YOU!

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. Spot on Squeek! Hard B*astard did a great show on the Boston Free Speech Rally

                  1. A “progressive” whose best friend is a racist, what is wrong with that picture, comrade?

              2. Perhaps Taney saw the Negro as an inferior race. It really doesn’t matter. At the time of this decision, the law did not yet reflect the vision the framers had for this country. Do you believe Taney should have rewritten the law? What if Taney and his court believed the Negro to be of a superior race? What if the court decided Scott and all other Negroes should be granted super-citizenship rights and made all Whites to be counted as 3/5’s? My understanding is that is not the role of the court. Eventually the will of the people, as expressed through the Legislative branch and the Executive branch changed the law.

                1. Taney et al manufactured a right to take slaves into free territories and retain them as slaves. See Robert Bork’s critique of Taney.

                  What’s amusing about all this is the serious critiques of Taney’s jurisprudence have been offered – but by people like Bork who are loathed by cretinettes like Natacha and Jill and Elaine.

                  1. “Elaine” — parrots the desperate seeker…

                    You and Nick are both a couple of idiots.

                    1. If you’re going to call me an ‘idiot’, you could at least be a bright retired schoolteacher.

                2. Well, not all white people at the time viewed blacks as non-human. The Dred Scott decision was the chance to take the high road, but instead, it led to the Civil War. Taney might have considered simple biological facts. Any fool knows that animals of different species cannot create offspring. If blacks were not human, then it would be biologically impossible for 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 or other mixed-race people to exist. What logic is there that determines that people whose skin is darker are not humans, but instead, are property who deserve to be treated as such by lighter-skinned people? The logic of white supremacy is the answer. The framers had the vision that “all men are created equal”, which, on its face, includes black and white men. White supremacy said otherwise, and that was the basis for the Dred Scott decision.

                  BTW: you can keep insulting me and my intelligence all you want. I am related to John Quincy Adams. Can you tell?

                  1. Well, I guess that since normal people can mate with severely retarded people, or even people in comas, that means that severely retarded people and people in comas should have all the rights of normal people, including the right to vote, drive cars, run for office, and serve in the military, etc.

                    You see, the whole thing about slavery that you don’t get is, that it has more to do with conquest than with the slave being non-human. For example, the Romans conquered the Greeks, and far from thinking them inferior, emulated them, and set them about to teaching their kids. The slaves brought to America were already conquered people. Tribe A kicked Tribe B’s a$$e$ in battle, and then took them as slaves. Who were subsequently sold to various places, including the U.S.

                    With the blacks, it was pretty obvious to most whites at the time that the majority of blacks were not really capable of being equal members of society. Even the smarter blacks often owned black slaves. As time progressed, and more blacks learned how to do things beside chuck spears at each other – as they began to learn to wear clothes, read, work machinery and equipment, fix and repair machinery, build houses out of wood and brick instead of mud huts – – – as time went on then whites began to view them differently. And the calls for Abolition began to grow.

                    There were parts of the South that had already begun to move to sharecropping instead of straight slavery, and many people began to free their slaves upon their own deaths, so that they could take up a life of their own. Even mean old Nathan Bedford Forrest freed some of his slaves before the war’s end. Because he was afraid he might die, and if the South won, then the black men who had stuck with him would never be free.

                    You need to stop viewing 1861 thru the lens of 2017. Plus, if you are really determined to save all those poor Negroes, then stop worrying about stuff that is over 150 years old, and maybe move to an inner city, and start fostering young black kids, and running after school tutoring programs for them. Or maybe start a free birth control delivery service to black teen girls. Because frankly, just taking down statues doesn’t change anything. It just gives you a chance to virtue signal and feel better about yourself. But it doesn’t actually help any real black people alive in 2017.

                    Squeeky Fromm
                    Girl Reporter

                    1. So, it’s all about conquest? How’d you like to go toe to toe with Serena Williams in any contest involving physicality? The loser is the other’s slave for life. Isn’t that fair, to your way of thinking?

                      Speaking of conquest: HRC beat the orange buffoon by 3 million votes, but he still gets to stink up the White House, at least for now.

                  2. Natacha – you can be related to God and it doesn’t make any difference to the argument. Very poor call to authority by the way.

                  3. The Dred Scott decision was the chance to take the high road, but instead, it led to the Civil War.

                    I have no intention of insulting your intelligence; it stands on its own merits.

                    What high road are you talking about? The Supreme Law of the Land high road, or the I know what’s best for the country high road? Do you really want 9 unelected people in robes, with lifetime tenure, establishing law in this country?

                  4. I am related to John Quincy Adams. Can you tell?

                    I hear some groaning at United First Parish Church, Quincy, MA.

            2. Taney said:

              “It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.

              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. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.

              And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed or more uniformly acted upon than by the English Government and English people. They not only seized them on the coast of Africa, and sold them or held them in slavery for their own use; but they took them as ordinary articles of merchandise to every country where they could make a profit on them, and were far more extensively engaged in this commerce than any other nation in the world.

              The opinion thus entertained and acted upon in England was naturally impressed upon the colonies they founded on this side of the Atlantic. And, accordingly, a negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property, and held, and bought and sold as such, in every one of the thirteen colonies which united in the Declaration of Independence, and afterwards formed the Constitution of the United States.”

              So, according to Taney, because Europeans believed that blacks were “…beings of an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race…” the framers of the Constitution couldn’t possibly have considered blacks to be human beings with rights as set forth in the Constitution. Of course, not all white people agreed, and this decision helped foment the Civil War.

              That’s why Taney’s statue needs to come down.

              1. That’s why Taney’s statue needs to come down.

                What your addled head doesn’t realize is that this coda added after Taney’s historical recitation is perfectly non sequitur.

              2. FDR imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Japanese-American CITIZENS and while they were interred. And what few know thanks to liberal historians, had the Japanese property sold by political cronies at big profits. Not only should FDR’s statues be taken down, and all memorials rescinded, his corpse should be exhumed and he should be impeached. Just following the alt left “logic.”

                1. Wonderful rendering of history by out resident historian who rose through the ranks of prison guard and on upwards to hotel dick.

          2. Question, Olly: have you ever read the Dred Scott decision? I

            So, we get to hear Natacha’s take on substantive due process?

            Can’t wait….

        2. Actually, Natacha is what you get when a young woman without natural assets isn’t taught manners, isn’t told to shut her pie hole, and isn’t taught to be something other than reactively self-important.

          1. “Manners” and “pie hole” in the same sentence. Interesting framing of the lesson.

    1. Thank God, for people, like you, who will not only tell us what to think, perceive, admire, honor and recognize, but will also not hesitate, for a moment, to cram your personal, warped and stilted ideas and beliefs down our respective throats, for our own good. What would we ever do without the glory that is you?

      1. And the gratuitous spiteful labels. I especially enjoy those.

    2. and who also was very successful politically?

      Germany was in ruins in May of 1945. Most people could do without such success,

    3. “all men are created equal…” is from the Declaration Of Independence.

  15. I never really like the idea of human statues. I get a kick everytime I see, especially the old Roman statues with, the nose knocked off the face of the individual. I think it was a way to discredit that person, but that is just a guess. If I ever had a chance to knock off the nose on a Statue of Emperor Constantine I would do so in a second.

    Now after reading Lincoln Unmasked by professor and economist Thomas DiLorenzo, the various statue(s) of Lincoln, his gatekeepers should probably keep an eye on them.

    FYI: DiLorenzo calls those historians who have hidden the many unflattering and even unethical truths about Lincoln, “Gatekeepers”. In his book he has at least one chapter dedicated to exposing them and their arguments. A fascinating read that is highly resourced. If I were ever to have my teenage or higher child read any single book, it would be this one.

    Just think, it exposes the dark side of our political system hidden by the than winners and one of the most ethically celebrated men in U.S. history. He is also the author of the Real Lincoln, his first book on him and a best seller.

    1. Yup. Just read “Lincoln Unmasked” and “The Real Lincoln”. Not pretty, but truth is often ugly. In any event, it sure straightened me out. I’m now respect patriots of the Confederate States of America patriots than ever before.. Also, worth noting that the “civil war” is an ignorant misnomer. More accurately, it is the War for Southern Independence or The War of Northern Aggression. It was a purely defensive war by the South to preserve its independence. That will rile the brainwashed “students of history” who see it otherwise, but so what?

  16. Justice John Marshall Harlan was the lone dissenting vote in the Plessy v Ferguson decision. He was a slave owner. Perhaps we can cover up or remove half of his statue.

      1. Surely you are smarter than that, Dave137. We know that humans analyzing other human’s actions through other points in time that are devoid of the pressures and sensibilities of those times are not really all that accurate. Poor actors on both sides. Actors on both sides who thought they were doing the right thing. It was a monumental cluster that should always welcome debate, not “johnny-come-lately-armchair-ethical-analysis.” We’re supposed to learn from these unfortunate events, and maybe we can avoid not repeating them. After reading this blog, I usually feel like getting the bow rosin out.

Comments are closed.