Restricted House to vote on removal of Roger B. Taney bust and other Confederate statues

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
The person that the Bill wants to replace him with has been involved with controversial rulings. Many think it to be the worse than the Dred Scott decision.
I have no doubt that Taney's reputation and legacy will be worse than the justice whose bust will replace him. It's hard to imagine that any SCOTUS ruling will ever be as bad as Dred Scott.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I disagree. He made his bias very evident, and not just with the Dred Scott ruling. Dred Scott was just the most obvious and egregious example.
????? Again Dred Scott was clearly based on US law, there was no Confederacy, and there is only one United States.......... Remarkable people wouldn't realize that. It appears the only bias your illustrating, is your own.

There's nothing to actually disagree with as far as what I said, he made it very clear he was both Unionist, and devoted to the US and it's constitution as a judge.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
????? Again Dred Scott was clearly based on US law, there was no Confederacy, and there is only one United States.......... Remarkable people wouldn't realize that. It appears the only bias your illustrating, is your own.

There's nothing to actually disagree with as far as what I said, he made it very clear he was both Unionist, and devoted to the US and it's constitution as a judge.
Yes I have a very low opinion of the Dred Scott ruling. It was dishonest as to the status of blacks at the time of the nations founding. It went beyond anything in the Constitution by claiming blacks had no rights. It abolished old compromises. It trampled on the states rights of the free states. And it empowered slaveholders to think they could take their slaves wherever they wanted, into the free states and the territories. The ruling was skewed towards the slaveholders, and spit on the free states.

Taney was wishy-washy on secession. He said it was unconstitutional, but that seceding states couldn't be coerced to stay. So I wouldn't go so far as to call him a "unionist."
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Most everything I have read notes him as Unionist as he certainly wasn't secessionist. And Unionist is actually a Union or northern sympathizer.

You can throw whatever out and its noted, just if it's false or misleading it will also be noted.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
When was the last time you stepped foot inside a classroom to make that determination? As someone who is in a regular classroom very often, your assumption is completely off the mark.
Don't need to, if ppl are only aware of his Dred Scott ruling as Dan suggested, obviously all the good he did isn't taught.

BTW it was he suggested thats all he is known for to the general public, which if so would go to the education of the general public.

If your an educator, I'd hope you would convey a more accurate depiction of his career and legacy to preserving constitutional law, so it's great if you do, but doesn't seem all do
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Don't need to, if ppl are only aware of his Dred Scott ruling as Dan suggested, obviously all the good he did isn't taught.
No, I didn't suggest anything about people being unaware. I said the most historically significant ruling of Taney's was Dred Scott. People may be aware of his other rulings, but Dred Scott is always going to overshadow every other part of Taney's SCOTUS tenure.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Most (or all) of these Confederates received a pardon. The bill amounts to a revocation of that pardon.
Taney wasn't pardoned, because no one even remotely suggested he did anything illegal or disloyal..........he was faithfully serving his country up to his death. Which just shows the "Confederate" label has nothing to do with the current attack on our history.
 

huskerblitz

Major
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Location
Nebraska
Don't need to, if ppl are only aware of his Dred Scott ruling as Dan suggested, obviously all the good he did isn't taught.

BTW it was he suggested thats all he is known for to the general public, which if so would go to the education of the general public.

If your an educator, I'd hope you would convey a more accurate depiction of his career and legacy to preserving constitutional law, so it's great if you do, but doesn't seem all do
You as a commenter I would hope you would have more accurate facts to use. You made clear you haven't stepped inside a classroom, so your viewpoint is tainted and unreliable, even in the most general terms. Most of what Taney is mentioned in the classroom is indeed related to his Dred Scot decision, and rightfully should be. That doesn't make Taney all this or all of that. Are you denying Taney made those comments? Most historical figures are handled in this way.

What you're failing to do is understand the difference between a general education and a more specific area of study. We didn't cover any more of Taney's decision in my Master's classes other than his Dred Scot decision. No Supreme Court justice is handled much differently in a general aspect. Now, I suspect you knew this but disrupts your narrative. But trying to lay blame at the feet of public education of something that is a very specified area of study is nothing more than a copout of failing to make one's point.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Taney wasn't pardoned, because no one even remotely suggested he did anything illegal or disloyal..........he was faithfully serving his country up to his death. Which just shows the "Confederate" label has nothing to do with the current attack on our history.
If you read the article in the OP, you'll see it says confederate statues AND a bust of Taney. It doesn't say that Taney was a confederate. The article references the Dred Scott decision as the justification for removing Taney's bust.

Slavery wasn't dying out gradually. It was being supported and enabled and protected by powerful interests. Taney served those interests. That's why he will no longer be publicly honored. Not because anyone alleges he was a confederate.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
You as a commenter I would hope you would have more accurate facts to use. You made clear you haven't stepped inside a classroom, so your viewpoint is tainted and unreliable, even in the most general terms. Most of what Taney is mentioned in the classroom is indeed related to his Dred Scot decision, and rightfully should be. That doesn't make Taney all this or all of that. Are you denying Taney made those comments? Most historical figures are handled in this way.

What you're failing to do is understand the difference between a general education and a more specific area of study. We didn't cover any more of Taney's decision in my Master's classes other than his Dred Scot decision. No Supreme Court justice is handled much differently in a general aspect. Now, I suspect you knew this but disrupts your narrative. But trying to lay blame at the feet of public education of something that is a very specified area of study is nothing more than a copout of failing to make one's point.
If your narrative is to not present an accurate of depiction of a historical figures life, it's certainly noted. I agree.

There was no narrative on my part, other then if one of the major figures in constitutional law, who helped shape things we still benefit from today is unknown for doing so, it would indeed reflect on education. Would suggest one doesn't have to step into a classroom, but simply read the news to see the US decline in HS and higher education rankings over my lifetime. It hasn't exactly been a secret.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
If you read the article in the OP, you'll see it says confederate statues AND a bust of Taney. It doesn't say that Taney was a confederate. The article references the Dred Scott decision as the justification for removing Taney's bust.

Slavery wasn't dying out gradually. It was being supported and enabled and protected by powerful interests. Taney served those interests. That's why he will no longer be publicly honored. Not because anyone alleges he was a confederate.
Again as I said Taney illustrates it isn't about confederates, again I agree, as he was still serving the US up to his death.

Which shouldn't surprise anyone, as anyone can browse through the threads and find many non confederates......even those leading the attack against the Confederacy have likewise been attacked and had calls for removal, ect.
 

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
Most (or all) of these Confederates received a pardon. The bill amounts to a revocation of that pardon.
No, it doesn’t. A pardon means that one no longer has to serve time for a crime committed or cannot be charged for that specific crime committed. It DOES NOT mean that the individual or group wasn’t guilty. It’s a literal Monopoly game “get out of jail free” card. In fact, the mere existence of a pardon suggests that a crime was indeed committed.

Pardoned or not, the United States is under no obligation to honor its enemies in its seat of government. Thank goodness these honorific monuments in the Capitol look like they’re on the way out to be replaced by those who looked to fulfill Jefferson’s declaration rather than those who openly opposed it (according to the VP of their rebel government). Good riddance.
 
Last edited:

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
Native Americans fought against the United States. Are we going to remove their statues too?
Not sure... Native Americans were oppressed people and almost everyone would agree that the US (north and south) gave them a bad time to put it lightly.

It’s a tough road to argue that pro-secessionist southerners were oppressed, though their slaves certainly were. In reality, they were no more oppressed than anyone whose favored political party didn’t win the last election, they felt their own selfish interests would be better served if they ignored the free and fair election- the difference is that they took the ball, went home, and started a war against the country they were a part of rather than continuing to be a part of the great experiment of democracy. I think the attempted equivalent here is far off base. Drawing an equivalent between Native Americans and the wealthiest aristocrats of the time borders on absurdity. How many senators or congressmen did the Native Americans have? How many Presidents were on the side of the Native Americans?
 
Last edited:

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
The public opinion against Taney is really a product of the existence of Presentism in our society today. The practice of Presentism
is a problem today in the depictions of historical events of the past. The act of judging past actions by current standards and interpreting past events in terms of modern values exists in today’s historical analysis. Some modern scholars and historians try to avoid presentism in their work because it results in a distorted depiction of historical events. Standards and cultural values have changed over time. History should be viewed and interpreted in relation to the era when the events occurred and not in present day terms. In regards to Taney, you really can’t judge the actions of someone who was born over 200 years ago by today’s standards because values have changed over time. Some people believe that presentism can result in a form of cultural bias and a distorted view of the past which may be true.
 

Paul Yancey

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Location
Kentucky
The public opinion against Taney is really a product of the existence of Presentism in our society today. The practice of Presentism
is a problem today in the depictions of historical events of the past. The act of judging past actions by current standards and interpreting past events in terms of modern values exists in today’s historical analysis. Some modern scholars and historians try to avoid presentism in their work because it results in a distorted depiction of historical events. Standards and cultural values have changed over time. History should be viewed and interpreted in relation to the era when the events occurred and not in present day terms. In regards to Taney, you really can’t judge the actions of someone who was born over 200 years ago by today’s standards because values have changed over time. Some people believe that presentism can result in a form of cultural bias and a distorted view of the past which may be true.
Well said.
 
Top