Concerning Justice Taney

This is a guest post by an anonymous Maryland reader who writes at some length about Chief Justice Taney.  He was a lot more interesting than I knew, but then as I've said before the way that the history of that era as taught today is retarded.

Needless to say, these opinions belong to Anonymous.  But you'll learn something by reading it.

----------------------

Confusion and Advice

When they started tearing down statues in Maryland of Roger Taney, declaring him to be racist, I wondered why so I did a little research.  What I found just on Wikipedia alone was very interesting.  Oddly enough, after visiting that site several times, and oddly enough since the outcry has heightened, I have noticed some slight changes in some of the cases listed.  Sadly, peer pressure seems to have seeped in and some reviews have been added implying racism yet as you read further on, others imply he was not a racist.  You decide for yourself.  But do the research first.

Turns out, Roger B. Taney was a man, who like many others, had more than one direction in his professional career but most notably was a Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, and served for 28 years between 1836 and 1964.  .  You have to remember two things:  1) the Civil Way took place between 1861 – 1865 but was heating up for several years prior to the onset and 2) the Supreme Court’s job is to settle legal issues by following the letter of the law as it is written.  Theirs is NOT to create, change, or dismiss laws no matter what their own person beliefs are.  In those days, that was a duty that I believe was taken far more seriously than it is today.  It was more administrative and less political.  It’s very important to keep that in mind as you review his record.

Of all of the decisions his court were involved in during those years, there were obviously going to be some dealing with slavery.  The racist claims stem from a very few decisions, however if you look at the laws vs the decision, then review events that followed those decisions, you have to realize he must have been aware of the impact those decisions would have.  That’s when you begin to see that he must have been a somewhat progressive person with a talent for critical thinking.  While adhering to the laws of the time, those decisions were actually the impetus for changes needed in order to abolish slavery and provide African Americans the very rights in question at that time.

You also have to realize that although he was a part of that court, he did not personally write all of the decisions, something that is still fact with decisions handed down by the same court today.  In fact, while required to sign them, there were some for which he made absolutely not written statements whatsoever, indicating he most likely did not agree but was also not in the majority.  Unfortunately, in today’s society,  far too often people are too quick to jump on the bandwagon and too slow to do their research or think all the way through an issue on their own, which, in my opinion, is exactly the case with Roger Taney.

Having said all that, there is one decision in particular that has been touted (screamed and shoved down everyone’s throats) as proof of his racism and reason enough to destroy his statues.

The history:  African people were brought to this country for the purpose of slavery and had no rights.

The case:  To decide if the children of slaves were American citizens.

The decision:  He ruled that slaves were not Americans, so therefore their children could not be Americans.  In fact, he said no one saw fit to declare them citizens when they brought them here.

His point:  They couldn’t now suddenly be considered citizens simply because some high ranker would find that very convenient.

On this point alone, many people today have cast their judgment on him.  But wait!  What if you think this one through a little further?  This was not a popular decision at for many at that time and tempers flared.  But it wasn’t because of slavery, it was because there were opposing parties concerning states rights, there was controversy, there were forces at work with ulterior motives (think George Soros), there were talks of withdrawing from the union, there were threats of war.  Reminder:  the Civil War was not about slavery, it was about the right of each individual state to remain individual.  They wanted to run their own states and have others abide by their state laws.  Only problem was some of those laws flew directly in the face of the constitution, which Taney noted in his decision.

The facts of the day need to be considered when reviewing his issue:

1

        Slaves were brought here, against their will, in shackles, from another country.  They were not citizens of the United States.

2

        The law was very clear on this matter, however not very clear about what could be done in each individual state.  Hence the flared tempers, accusations, arguments, threats, and eventually, the Civil War.

3

        There were no such things as ‘anchor babies’ at that time.

4 

          Many slave owners did not want slaves to have rights as citizens because that would lend support to those opposing slavery.

5

        Slavery was widely accepted during those days and in many other countries as well.  It was how farmers and plantation owners were able to work their land.  (not saying it was right because it wasn’t, just that it was how things were at that time.  Reminder:  Many on the Mayflower, including my husband’s ancestor, were indentured servants.  Those same people willingly helped write and signed the Mayflower Compact, which was essentially the first set of laws for this country)

6

        Sadly, many of these people were rounded up and sold to slave traders by their own people.  Again, that doesn’t excuse or make any of it right, it’s just a fact that should not be ignored.

7

        In many families, slaves were inherited.  That means some owners never purchased slaves, but rather grew up with them and knew no other way of life.  So many children who grew up with them and were closer to them than their own parents or siblings.  Many loved and relied on them without ever realizing they were not free to leave at their own will.  On that same note, some slaves chose not to leave when they were freed.  They had come to consider the family a part of their family.  Not all owners were cruel or mean, just maybe unenlightened.  (again, not saying owning slaves was right, just stating the facts)

8      Supreme Court Justices are (were) required to abide by the law, not interpret, change, or overturn it.  While laws concerning slave ownership rights varied by state at that time, laws about citizenship did not.

Due to that decision, what eventually followed actually benefited these African people who were so wrongly brought into this country at that time.  Many slave owners began to procure citizenship for their slaves and many emancipated slaves began immigration processes to become citizens.  Why?  Because as citizens they could no longer be denied the basic rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Of course for some owners this was not the benefit they sought.  The benefit they sought was to protect their ‘property’.  By having their slaves declared citizens they would become owners of their children as well, but the indirect effect benefited their slaves in ways they hadn’t anticipated.  A decision such as this during those times was actually very strategic and beneficial to the future African American people.  By officially becoming citizens they gained rights and more protection than they had without citizenship, and for those who had them, land grants could not be taken from them.

It is what actually made them ‘African American’s’.  So it seems the very people who so boldly and openly condemn this man and call him racist, are the people who most benefited from his ruling.

But wait….there’s more…..

Did you know Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of ‘habeas corpus’ in parts of Maryland?  This meant that people could be taken from their homes by the government, arrested, and held indefinitely with no legal charges or reason.  Think about that for a moment.  If you were an emancipated slave, you could be snatched up, held against your will (again), and maybe (probably) even taken to another state where slavery was legal, and given (or most likely sold) to another slave owner.  You could be accused of anything and held for years.  It was Taney who ruled this unconstitutional and Lincoln who ignored his ruling.  But while Taney is condemned, Lincoln is considered to be the great emancipator.

During his career, Taney and his court were widely respected because they were determinedly politically neutral, remaining fair and impartial in all issues with political undertones.  Example:  Luther v Borden.  This too is often ignored by detractors, which is a sad fact given that is clearly not the case with today’s Supreme Court, who’s justices are nominated based on their personal political affiliation.

Taney's 1849 majority opinion in Luther v. Borden provided an important rationale for limiting federal judicial power. The Court considered its own authority to issue rulings on matters deemed to be political in nature. Martin Luther, a Dorrite shoemaker, brought suit against Luther Borden, a state militiaman because Luther's house had been ransacked. Luther based his case on the claim that the Dorr government was the legitimate government of Rhode Island, and that Borden's violation of his home constituted a private act lacking legal authority. The circuit court, rejecting this contention, held that no trespass had been committed, and the Supreme Court, in 1849, affirmed. The decision provides the distinction between political questions and justiciable ones. Taney asserted that, "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."  The majority opinion interpreted the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution, Article IV, Section 4. Taney held that under this article Congress is able to decide what government is established in each state. This decision was important, because it is an example of judicial self-restraint. Many Democrats had hoped that the justices would legitimize the actions of the Rhode Island reformers. However, the justices' refusal to do so demonstrated the Court's independence and neutrality in a politically charged atmosphere. The Court showed that they could rise above politics and make the decision that it needed to make.

And finally, if you still think he was a bad guy, you should know this:  while slavery was an accepted, legal standard of the day, Taney emancipated his own slaves and gave pensions to those who were too old to work.  In 1819, he defended a Methodist minister who had been indicted for inciting slave insurrections by denouncing slavery in a camp meeting.  In his opening argument in that case, Taney condemned slavery as "a blot on our national character.

Issues arise when two parties disagree.  Any topic you think will never be agreed on by everyone.  This is a man who served this country for 28 years, wrote hundreds of decisions, did many good things in many areas of law, stood up against the government on behalf of ALL people – black and white.  He was involved in only a handful of decisions regarding slavery and followed the law to the letter when he did but also did it in a way that pointed out issues in the written laws and the intent of some people to abuse them for their own political gains.  Is it fair to judge a man from 170 years ago using today’s society, laws and standards?  Is it fair or right to ignore his entire career, condemn him, and remove his statues and history based solely on one topic of a long and diversified career that had very positive and long lasting effects this country?  You decide but my advice is to do your research before you do.