Charlottesville

[L Verge]

(08-18-2017 11:02 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 10:15 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I would also like to thank Roger for allowing us to express our opinions here, and I thank our posters for staying reasonably civil in their postings.

And it hasn't been easy.
I'm all out of Xanax and chocolate

I'll send you some of my stock, Gene. I now buy those items in bulk!

---

"I have mixed feelings about these monuments. For example the removal of Roger B. Taney's statue I applaud, but at the same time I believe it has it's place as part of our history and should never be forgotten. This notion that these will all be removed and placed in a museum or a Park seems far fetched. Once we label these as Hate they will have to be lost to society."

I am a disgruntled Marylander this morning after the removal of the Taney statue from the grounds of the Maryland State House. About 25 years ago, I watched as they took his name off of a middle school here in my county and replaced it with another Justice's name. My dismay, anger, confusion, whatever you want to call it derives from the ignorance of Taney's full history.

"The evil that men do lives after them. The good is often interred with their bones." Remember that statement from Marc Antony (not the modern singer, btw)? Well, I consider that Taney is a victim of just this sort of thing. Those currently "in power" in the decision-making of who stays and who goes are completely ignoring the good sides of those that they consider "evil."

Roger Brooke Taney was a Marylander and grew up about 25 miles from Surratt House. He was an outstanding student and lawyer -- and up until a few decades ago, was considered by knowledgeable people to be one of the finest Constitutional jurists in our history. He served as both Jackson's Attorney General and then as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1836 until his death in 1864 (ironically on October 12 of that year, the same day that the Maryland electorate voted in the new state constitution outlawing slavery in our state as of November 1 of 1864).

Taney was married to the sister of Francis Scott Key; he also inherited slaves from his father and then promptly manumitted them. Our current protesters, who claim to know so much history, have failed to note that Taney's actions in the Dred Scott decision were based on the entire Supreme Court's opinions, not his alone -- and that the Court interpreted the Constitution as it then stood, in the form that the original Constitutional Convention and signers had created it.

These historians also fail to mention that Taney's Court also heard the 1840 La Amistade case (remember the movie?). In that case, which involved international issues as well, the Court ruled in favor of the African captives who rebelled against the Spanish crew who intended to sell them into slavery. Taney's Court's decision gave a big boost to the abolitionist movement. To me, that shows that Chief Justice Taney and Associate Justices on both the Scott decision and the Amistade decision worked with Constitutional principles as they were interpreted at that time to arrive at decisions that upheld the laws of our land.

If history were taught professionally and scholarly, we might have citizens that were more attuned to what has gone on in our country and the world. And, they might not be inclined to fall for these staged protests.