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:
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.
